arXiv · I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

GAMMA-RAY BURST OBSERVATIONS AT HIGH-ENERGY

WITH THE FERMI LARGE AREA TELESCOPE

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES

OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Aurelien Philippe Bouvier

November 2018

arX

iv:1

012.

0558

v1 [

astr

o-ph

.HE

] 2

9 N

ov 2

010

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it

is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy.

(Tsuneyoshi Kamae) Principal Adviser




(Hiroyasu Tajima)




(Stefan Funk)




(Vahe Petrosian)

Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies.

ii

Preface

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (Fermi) mission was launched by

NASA from Cape Canaveral on June 11th, 2008. The Large Area Telescope

(LAT), the primary instrument onboard, is an imaging, wide field-of-view

(FoV), high-energy γ-ray telescope, covering the energy range from 20 MeV

to more than 300 GeV. With an expected five to ten years time of operation,

the mission aims at acquiring a deeper understanding of astrophysical objects

producing high-energy radiation such as supermassive black holes in Active

Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), supernovae remnants, Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs),

Pulsars, microquasars and novae (recently discovered as γ-ray emitter [1]). On

this list, Gamma-Ray Bursts stand out as the most violent, the most energetic

and the most distant objects ever detected by humans.

This thesis focuses on the observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts during the

first year and a half of operation (up to January 2010) of the Fermi LAT

instrument which opened up a new era in the study of the high-energy γ-ray

sky1. Through the detection of high-energy radiations from GRBs, one can

learn about the nature of these objects but also use them as a tool to constrain

the amount of radiation present in the Universe as well as the fundamental

nature of light propagation.

The first two chapters introduce the reader to the state of GRB observa-

tions and their theoretical interpretations before the launch of Fermi. Fol-

lows in chapter 3 an introduction to the use of γ-ray sources to constrain the

Infrared-Optical-Ultraviolet Extragalactic Background Light (EBL). Chapter

4 provides a detailed description of the Fermi LAT and GBM instruments that

are relevant for GRB observations. Chapter 5 summarizes a work performed

1However, blazars (which are a class of bright AGNs with their jet pointed toward us)detected by the LAT will also be used in combination with GRBs in the analysis presentedin chapter 9.

iii

in the course of my thesis to improve the LAT performance specifically for

the observation of transient objects through the definition and optimization

of new LAT event selections. And chapter 6 describes the standard procedure

that is used for the detection and analysis of GRBs with the LAT instrument.

A comprehensive and detailed characterization of the high-energy prompt

emission of LAT GRBs during the first year and a half of operation will be

given in chapter 7. We provide in the chapter a comparison of the LAT GRB

detection rate with predictions based on pre-Fermi observations of the sub-

MeV emission by the BATSE detectors onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray

Observatory (CGRO). This will allow us to derive few general conclusions on

the behavior and energetics of the GRB population in the high-energy regime.

In its first year and a half, Fermi LAT detected 14 GRBs among which 4

are extremely bright in the LAT energy range which allowed us to probe the

spectral behavior of these sources with unprecedented precision. A number

of interesting features in the high-energy prompt emission have been revealed

through their analyses. These include delay of the high-energy photons with

respect to the sub-MeV emission, an additional spectral component dominat-

ing over the so-called ’Band’ function in the Fermi energy range and finally a

curvature in the spectrum above 1 GeV observed in one of the bright LAT

GRBs. We provide a brief discussion of the possible theoretical interpretations

for these features which are still a source of much debate in the GRB commu-

nity. Constraints on the bulk Lorentz factor of the GRB jet are also discussed

at the end of this chapter.

The following two chapters focus on the use of GRBs with very high-energy

emission (typically Á 10 GeV) as a tool to constrain interesting physics. The

first constraint has to do with the nature of light, and specifically the speed

at which it travels in vacuum which is considered as a fundamental constant

in special relativity. However, some models of quantum gravity predict that

Lorentz Invariance (namely the independence of the speed of light with energy)

would break down for high energy photons due to the intrinsic nature of the

quantum ’foam’ in which light is traveling in these models. Thanks to the

very sharp onset of GRB emissions, their extreme cosmological distances and

the detection of very high-energy events by the LAT, it is possible to set

significant limits on the linear dependence of the speed of light with energy

iv

and thus constrain these quantum gravity models. Details of this analysis are

presented in chapter 8.

In chapter 9 we constrain the content of the Optical-Ultraviolet radiation

in the Universe - the so-called Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) - which

is difficult to observe directly due to the presence of foreground zodiacal and

galactic light. Through the LAT observations of GRBs as well as blazars, it

is possible to probe for the effect of the optical-Ultraviolet EBL on the γ-ray

spectrum of bright extragalactic sources. Indeed, high-energy γ-rays are known

to interact with the EBL through the pair creation process (γγ Ñ ee) when

they carry sufficient energy (typically Á 10 GeV). We found no such EBL-

related signature in the LAT data and exclude some EBL models which predict

an opaque Universe inconsistent with the Fermi LAT data. In particular,

the constraints we find significantly reject the Stecker’s ’baseline’ and ’fast

evolution’ models [255]. Our investigations on this topic are described in full

details in chapter 9.

Finally, Chapter 10 will conclude and provide prospects for the future of

high energy observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts with Fermi as well as with

next generations instruments and how it might help bringing us closer to a

unified and complete picture of these GRB phenomenon.

v

Acknowledgements

I view my time spent as a graduate student in California as one of the happiest

of my life. Many reasons for this spring to my mind but my work as a PhD

student at KIPAC - of which this manuscript is the product - is certainly

high on the list. Although the path to a PhD can be made of times where

you wonder why you didn’t choose surf instructor as a profession, it is also

made of most pleasurable rewards: understanding a little bit better every day

how the universe works, getting a kick at pinning down a difficult (or not

so difficult) problem, always learning new skills, discussing interesting ideas

with friends and colleagues, seeing oneself slowly becoming a scientist with its

wonderful approach to problem solving, or simply providing you with some

sense of accomplishment in your life. I here would like to express my most

sincere feelings toward those of you who played a significant role during my

time here at Stanford.

The scientific method has for a long time been a foggy concept in my mind.

Now that my PhD research taught me its inner-working, I realize that this is

probably the most valuable lesson I learned during those years. If only for that,

I would certainly do it all over again. Without a doubt, my mentor Pr. Hiro

Tajima was at the front-line of this educational process. By patiently guiding

me through meaningful investigations and with his acute sense of priorities

in conducting scientific research, he has been and remains a great inspiration

to me. His trust in my scientific work as well as his strong support within

the collaboration gave me confidence in my abilities as a scientist. And as I

was acquiring more experience, he always gave me the freedom to venture into

particular topics I was interested in. He also shared with me his enthusiasm

and knowledge in the world of instrumentation which has become a great

interest of mine that I will pursue during my postdoc. For all of that Hiro,

vi

thank you very much!

My research would simply not be without an amazing group of scientists

that decided to make the Fermi telescope a reality and a success. The GRB

group in particular was a very fertile environment for me to grow in and I

thank all of you I had the chance to collaborate with: Fred, Nicola, Jim, Va-

lerie, Michael, Dan, Yoni and a special thought to my graduate and postdoc

colleagues and friends: Sylain, Vlasios, Elena, Vero, Michael, Alexander, Jo-

han, Masa, Francesco. I’d like to thank Fred and Nicola in particular for all

the care and time they invested to help me find a postdoc position, I’m re-

ally touched. A big thank you also to the ’EBL team’ which I truly enjoyed

working with: Anita, Andrew, Luis, Silvia and Soeb.

The KIPAC institute is an extremely rich environment to conduct research

in astrophysics and I feel lucky and proud having been part of it for a little

while. Many people greatly contributed to my maturation as a scientist in

this place. My advisor Pr. Tune Kamae provided me with very valuable

scientific and academic advice as well as the freedom necessary for me to find

an area of research I was most interested in. Pr. Vahe Petrosian introduced

me to the topic of Gamma-Ray Bursts which would become my dream and

nightmare for the years to come, and has always been very helpful in sharing

his immense knowledge in this field. For the support and scientific help they

provided me with, I’d like to thank Jim, Seth and Stefan. Finally, a big

thumb up to the whole graduate and postdoc gang which brings so much life

to this place: Herman, Keith, Josh, Warrit, Martin, Rudy, Alex, Rolf, Marco,

Peter, Masaaki, Dan, Justin, Shizuka, Simona, Aurora, Norbert, Taka, Luigi,

Yvonne, Ping, Bijan. You are what I will miss the most in this place. A special

thought to David Paneque who besides being a top-notch scientist I had the

privilege to work with, is most and for-all a friend who introduced me to the

best drug ever: adrenaline rush!

Finally, I would certainly not have been able to carry out all these years

of research without the love and friendship of my closest ones. My mum and

dad, who gave me a beautiful childhood and view of the world, and my siblings

Mat, Vic and Lea: I miss not having you closer to me. Alice who brightens

my life every single day! Thomas for being my best friend throughout those

vii

years. And all of you I shared so many good times with in the bay area: David

M., Alex, Pierre S., Charles H. D., Negin, Dan B., Harper & co., Pierre G.,

Magali, David P., Shizuka, Sarah, Dima, Mr. George, Anna, Kevin, Fabio,

Julien, Maki, Fab, Cristo... and many of you that stayed close despite time

and distance. Thanks for walking part of the journey with me!

Don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow.

Don’t walk behind me, I may not lead.

Walk beside me and be my friend.

- Albert Camus -

To the spirit of Rimini...

viii

Contents

Preface iii

Acknowledgements vi

1 Gamma-Ray Bursts 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 History of GRB Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.1 The first years (1967-1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.2 BATSE (1991-2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.3 BeppoSAX & HETE-2 (1996-2007) . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2.4 Swift (2004 - present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 The GRB Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.3.1 Progenitors of GRBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.3.2 The GRB plasma outflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2 High-energy γ-ray Emission from GRBs 27

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.2 Pre-Fermi observations of HE Emission from GRBs . . . . . . 28

2.3 High-energy emission Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.3.1 Leptonic emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.3.2 Hadronic emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.4 Internal-Absorption Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3 EBL absorption of the γ-ray emission from GRBs and AGNs 38

3.1 The IR-optical-UV EBL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.2 EBL Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.3 Constraints on the EBL via γ-ray observations . . . . . . . . . 43

ix

4 The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope 46

4.1 Mission timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2 Observing Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.3 The Large Area Telescope (LAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.3.1 Instrument capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.3.2 Detection methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.3.3 Detector Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.3.4 Onboard and Ground Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.3.5 The LAT Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.4 Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.4.1 Detector Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.4.2 Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.4.3 Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.4.4 The Fermi GBM Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5 Optimization of event selection for GRB science 61

5.1 Introduction to LAT event selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.2 Optimization of event classes for GRB science . . . . . . . . . 66

5.2.1 Generalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.2.2 Method for optimizating event classes for GRB science 68

5.3 Comparison of S3 with other classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

6 Detection procedure for a LAT GRB 77

6.1 GBM Burst Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6.2 Onboard GRB Detection in the LAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6.3 On-ground Automated Science processing . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.4 Human-in-the-loop analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.5 Estimation of background and significance of detection . . . . 83

6.6 LAT GCN circular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

7 High energy prompt emission of GRBs detected by the LAT 89

7.1 Overview of LAT detected GRBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

7.2 Delay of the high energy emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7.2.1 Bright bursts: GRB 080916C, 090510, 090902B, 090926A 97

7.2.2 Faint burst GRB 080825C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

x

7.3 Time-resolved spectroscopy of the prompt emission . . . . . . 106

7.3.1 High energy additional component . . . . . . . . . . . 107

7.3.2 Spectral curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

7.3.3 Investigation of systematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

7.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

7.4.1 Possible theoretical interpretations of LAT GRB features 124

7.4.2 Constraints on the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet . . . . 128

8 Limits on Lorentz Invariance Violation 131

8.1 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

8.2 Characterization and energy uncertainty of LAT events . . . . 133

8.2.1 Characteristics of high energy events . . . . . . . . . . 134

8.2.2 Asociation with GRB090510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

8.2.3 Refined energy estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

8.3 Limits on possible time delay and on MQG . . . . . . . . . . . 138

9 LAT Constraints on the Gamma-ray Opacity of the Universe144

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

9.2 Observations and Data Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

9.2.1 AGN sample and potential biases . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

9.2.2 GRB sample and potential biases . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

9.3 Analysis of γ-ray flux attenuation and results . . . . . . . . . 153

9.3.1 Flux ratios - a population based method . . . . . . . . 153

9.3.2 Constraints on EBL models from individual source spectra155

9.3.3 Opacity upper limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

9.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

10 Conclusions and future prospects 179

A Background estimation for transient events 184

A.1 Estimating background level during a transient emission . . . 185

A.2 Modelisation of the LAT background for transient events . . . 188

A.2.1 ’Cosmic-ray’ background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

A.2.2 γ-ray background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

A.2.3 Putting it all together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

xi

B Methodology for joint LAT/GBM spectroscopy 194

B.1 Forward-folding technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

B.2 Statistical hypothesis testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

B.3 Spectral fitting tools for joint GBM/LAT analysis . . . . . . . 200

C Gamma-ray Bursts as Cosmological Tools 202

C.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

C.2 Standard Candle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

C.3 Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

C.3.1 Correlations and Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

C.4 GRB Evolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

C.4.1 Evolution with Pseudoredshifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

C.4.2 Evolution with Measured Redshifts . . . . . . . . . . . 211

C.5 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Bibliography 222

xii

List of Tables

1.1 List of past and operating instruments that have claimed GRB

detection along with the approximate numbers of detected GRBs

detected as of January 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.1 LAT instrument characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 GBM instrument characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7.1 List of GRBs detected by the LAT up to January 2010 along

with some general information. The Test-Statistic (TS) is com-

puted via a likelihood fit for a point source (:: based on spe-

cific analysis requiring non-standard data selection; ::: emis-

sion is weak for these bursts so the significance was based on an

extended emission analysis carefully taking into account back-

ground level). Θ is the angle between the GRB best localization

and the LAT boresight at the time of the GBM trigger (* spec-

ifies when an ARR has been triggered). ∆T is an approximate

estimate of the duration of the high energy prompt emission

(this value is only indicative as the transition between prompt

emission and extended emission is extremely subtle to define;

**: the signal is too weak to give a rough estimate of the prompt

emission). Boxes with no entry means that the information is

unknown or extremely difficult to estimate. . . . . . . . . . . . 91

7.2 Summary of GBM/LAT joint spectral fitting between T03.3 s

and T0 21.6 s. The flux range covered by both instruments is

10 keV – 10 GeV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

xiii

7.3 Systematic uncertainties derived for GRB 080825C as well as

the predominant effect for each spectral parameter of the time-

integrated best fit Band function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

8.1 Lower-limits on the Quantum Gravity mass scale associated

with a possible linear (n = 1) variation of the speed of light

with photon energy, that we can place from the lack of time

delay (of sign sn) in the arrival of high-energy photons relative

to low-energy photons, from our observations of GRB 090510. 143

9.1 Spectral indices, mean predicted and observed flux ratios, and

reduced χ2 and probability for blazar sub-populations . . . . . 154

9.2 List of blazars and GRBs detected by the LAT which have red-

shift measurements, and which constrain the EBL opacity the

most. For each source, J2000 coordinate based name (other

name), the energy of the highest-energy photon (HEP), the con-

version type of the event (front or back) of the instrument, the

energy resolution, ∆EE, for 68% containment of the recon-

structed incoming photon energy, and the 68% containment ra-

dius based on the energy and incoming direction in instrument

coordinates of the event, the separation from the source and the

chance probability of the HEP being from the galactic diffuse or

isotropic backgrounds are also listed. The energy resolution for

the GRB HEP events is taken from Abdo et al. [177] and Abdo

et al. [178] using the respective lower energy bounds. The three

highest-energy photons are listed for those sources that have

multiple constraining photons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

xiv

9.3 Parameter values of the power law (PL) fits dNdE N0pΓ1qEΓrEΓ1

max EΓ1min s in the range Emin 100 MeV to Emax

10 GeV of the sources (AGN and GRBs) listed in Table 9.4 ex-

cept for source J1504+1029 where a log parabolic parametriza-

tion (LP) dNdE N0pEEbqpΓβ logpEEbqq has been found to

be preferable over a power law fit (with ∆TS 71.9). The

spectral fits for the GRBs are performed below 6 GeV and 3

GeV for GRB 090902B and GRB 080916C, respectively. The

TS values are obtained through a likelihood ratio test compar-

ing a model with background only and a model where a point

source was added. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

9.4 Gamma-ray optical depth to HEP calculated using the EBL

model of Franceschini et al (2008; F08) in comparison to the

“baseline” model of Stecker et al. [255] (St06). Also listed are

the number of photons associated to the source which have ¥ 15

GeV energy and which can potentially constrain EBL models. 161

9.5 Listed are the significance of rejecting the “baseline” model

(Stecker et al. [255]), calculated using the HEP method as de-

scribed in Section 9.3.2. For completeness, we also report indi-

vidually the probability of the HEP to be a background event

(Pbkg) and the probability for this HEP not to be absorbed

by the EBL if it were emitted by the source (PHEP ) following

Eq. 9.3.2. For those sources with more than one constrain-

ing photon, the individual and combined Prejection are calcu-

lated. The “fast evolution” model by Stecker et al. [255] is

more opaque and leads to an even higher significance of rejec-

tion. Applying this method to less opaque models leads to no

hints of rejection since the probability PHEP is large in those

cases (e.g. Á 0.1 for the Franceschini et al. [211] EBL model).

Note that a log parabola model was used as the intrinsic model

for source J1504+1029 since evidence of curvature is observed

here even below 10 GeV (see Table 9.3). . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

xv

9.6 Significance of rejecting the “baseline” model (Stecker et al.

[255]), calculated using the LRT method described in Section

9.3.2. Again, the “fast evolution” model by Stecker et al. [255]

leads to a high rejection significance with two sources (J0808-

0751 and J1016+0513) with ¡ 4σ post-trial significance. The

post-trial significance is computed by taking into account the

fact that our analysis is considering 200 independent sources. 164

9.7 Upper limits (95% c.l.) on the γ-ray optical depth for AGN

in Table 9.4. The first and second column report the name of

the sources and their redshift, the third column the maximum

photon energy and the fourth column the optical depth UL

evaluated at 95% c.l. as τUL lnrFunabspEqFobspEqs 2σ., the

fourth column the number of energy bins/dec (for E¡10 GeV)

used to evaluate FobspEq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

xvi

List of Figures

1.1 Lightcurve of the first GRB detected by the military satellites

Vela 3 and 4. The discovery of the detection of brief and sudden

γ-ray flashes not originating from Earth was made public only

7 years later [3]. Credit: R. Klebesadel, I. Strong & R. Olson . 4

1.2 Locations of all 2704 GRBs detected by BATSE in galactic co-

ordinates. The isotropic distribution of GRB localizations sug-

gested that GRBs are most likely extragalactic sources. Source:

[5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Diverse light curves of GRBs detected by BATSE. Source: J.

T. Bonnell (NASA/GSFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4 Duration (T90) distribution of the GRBs detected by BATSE.

The bimodal distribution is indicative of two populations of

bursts separated around T90 2 s. Source: [6] . . . . . . . . . 8

1.5 Possible correlation between the hardness ratio and the dura-

tion pT90q of BATSE GRBs. Short bursts (T90 À 2 s) have

higher hardness ratios than long bursts (T90 Á 2 s), suggesting

that short and long bursts constitute two separate populations,

probably originating from different progenitors. Source : [7] . 9

1.6 Band function fit to GRB911127 with the following fit param-

eters α 0.967 0.022 and β 2.427 0.07. The Band

function was found to be a very good phenomenological de-

scription of the prompt GRB spectrum in the sub-MeV regime.

Source: [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

xvii

1.7 Localization of GRB 970228 observed by BeppoSAX. The left

image is the X-ray emission in the γ-ray instrument error box

taken 8 hours after trigger while the right image is taken

3 days after trigger. A fainting source was clearly detected

at the GRB location which is the first detection of an X-ray

afterglow. Through the subsequent measurement of the host

galaxy redshift, this was the first conclusive evidence of the

extragalactic nature of long GRBs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.8 Sketch of an afterglow light curve based on Swift’s observations.

Phase “0,” corresponds to the end of the prompt emission. Four

power-law light-curve segments together with a flaring compo-

nent are identified in the afterglow phase. The components

marked with solid lines are the features common to most long

GRBs, while the ones marked with dashed lines are observed

in only a fraction of GRBs. The typical spectral indices of the

power-law decay are shown for each segment. The break be-

tween regions III and IV occurs simultaneously for all observed

frequencies (achromatic break) and is related to the geometry

of the GRB relativistic jets. Source: [13] . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.9 Redshift distributions of GRBs detected by Swift (up to April

2010) and of GRBs detected by pre-Swift satellites. The average

redshift of the Swift sample (red, 115 bursts with mean 2.2)

is higher than redshift of the previous observations (blue, 44

bursts with mean 1.35) because of the greater sensitivity of

Swift to distant GRBs. Dot-dashed curve is the expectation of

the redshift distribution of GRBs predicted by a simple model

(see [16] for details). Source: [15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.10 Redshif distributions of GRBs detected up to the 23rd of April

2009, when the highest redshift GRBs was discovered at z 8.2.

Credit: Edo Berger (Harvard/CfA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

xviii

1.11 Top: distribution of the isotropic-equivalent energy output in

γ-rays for a sample of GRBs with known redshifts. Bottom:

distribution of the γ-ray energy output corrected for the colli-

mation of the jet (collimation angle has been deduced of late

time achromatic break). Arrows indicate lower or upper limits

to the collimation-corrected energy (when a jet break has not

been clearly identified). Source: [44] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.12 Sketch showing the different steps involved in the ‘fireball’ model

with internal shocks producing the γ-ray prompt emission and

external shock with the interstellar medium or the star wind

responsible for the afterglow phase observed in radio, optical,

X-ray, γ-ray. Source: [272] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.13 Different possible broadband synchrotron spectra from a rel-

ativistic blast wave that accelerates electrons to a power-law

distribution of energies (Nγ9γp, with γ the Lorentz factor of

the electrons). The break frequencies are shown by vertical

dashed lines for different sets of physical conditions correspond-

ing to different orderings of the break frequencies: the minimal

synchrotron frequency of the least energetic electron νm, the

self-absorption frequency νsa, and the typical synchrotron fre-

quency of an electron whose cooling time equals the dynamical

time of the system νc. The similarity of these spectra to the

spectrum of the prompt emission from GRBs implies that the

latter is most likely synchrotron radiation. Source: [28]. . . . 26

2.1 Ulysses and EGRET observations of GRB 970217. Notice in

particular the 18GeV photon detected 90min by EGRET

after the GRB onset. Source: [63] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.2 Combined spectrum of GRB 941017 measured by BATSE and

EGRET at different times relative to the BATSE trigger, a

(18, 14 s), b (14, 47 s), c (47, 80 s), d (80, 113 s), and e (113, 211 s).

An additional component is clearly observed at high energy and

stays roughly constant with a hard index ( 1) while the sub-

MeV emission is decreasing. Source: [62] . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

xix

2.3 Predictions for synchrotron and synchrotron self-compton radi-

ation produced at internal shocks for different fractions of the

jet’s energy carried by the magnetic field εB: black εB 0.33,

red εB 102, blue εB 104. Here Γ 600, εe 0.316,

∆t 103, l1 0.8, and the GRB has a redshift z 1. The

calculation is for a low-opacity fireball. The higher εB is, the

smaller the fraction of the electrons’ energy dissipated through

inverse Compton scattering. The fraction of energy emitted at

high energy (as opposed to the well-known sub-MeV behavior) is

therefore heavily dependent on the amount of energy deposited

into the electrons (εe) compare to the amount of energy in the

magnetic field (εB) if the scenario of leptonic emission. Source:

[70] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.4 Opacities of high energy photons in the GRB internal shocks

for various processes with the dominant γ γ pair produc-

tion process which make the fireball optically thick for spe-

cific bulk Lorentz factor and energy regime. Photons below

the e pair production threshold, in the comoving frame, es-

cape freely both below 10-100 GeV and above 10 PeV. When

other parameters are fixed, the opacity decreases with increasing

Γ ( 316, 500, 800 for solid, dotted and dashed curves respec-

tively). The GRB fireball becomes completely optically thin

to photons of all energy for a very high bulk Lorentz factor

(Γ ¡¡ 1000). [265] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 Schematic background radiation spectrum as a function of wave-

length. The optical-infrared-UV EBL consists of two kinds of

light: redshifted starlight at near infrared-optical-UV (and op-

tically bright AGN to a lesser extent) and starlight absorbed

and remitted by dust in the infrared. The infrared to UV

background light is the second most intense source of radiation

background after the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

Source: Wikipedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

xx

3.2 EBL measurements and lower/upper limits (gray symbols) from

various experiments. Solid curves represent minimum and max-

imum shape for the EBL spectrum which is reasonable given the

observational constraints [267]. This illustrates the huge uncer-

tainty in estimating the EBL content of the Universe. Source:

[266] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.3 Attenuation as a function of observed gamma-ray energy for the

EBL models of [211] and [255]. These models predict the min-

imum and maximum absorption of all models in the literature,

and thus illustrate the range of optical depths predicted at very

high energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.1 Photon conversion in the LAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.2 View of the Fermi LAT instrument with the Anti-Coincidence

Detector (yellow) ”opened” and the tracker and calorimeter part

of one tower separated for more clarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.3 Comparison of the LAT onboard (dashed) and onground ’tran-

sient’ class (solid) effective areas and point-spread-functions . 54

4.4 Effective Area: the plot on the left is for normal incidence pho-

tons (defined here as cospθq ¡ 0.975); the one on the right is for

10 GeV photons as a function of incidence angle. Blue and red

curves represent the back and front effective area while black

curve is the total instrument effective area (back+front). . . . 55

4.5 Point-spread-function of the diffuse class at incidence angle

(solid) and 60 off-axis (dashed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.6 a view of the NaI (left) and BGO (right) detectors . . . . . . . 58

4.7 GBM detectors placements around the satellite . . . . . . . . 59

5.1 Ratio of the cosmic-ray induced residual background to the

extragalactic diffuse background inferred from EGRET obser-

vations [104] for each of the three analysis classes (transient,

source, diffuse) in the Pass6 framework. The integral EGRET

diffuse flux is 1.45 107 ph cm2 s1 sr1 above 100 MeV. . 65

xxi

5.2 On-axis effective area of the Pass6 diffuse, transient and S3 class

(left panel) and of the Pass7 source, transient and S3 class (right

panel). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.3 Pass7 γ efficiency above 100 MeV for different selections as a

function of the high-energy index. Soft bursts benefit more from

loose event selections at low energy while hard bursts benefit is

mostly from the high energy effective area which shows smaller

differences between the different classes thus the smaller differ-

ence in γ efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.4 Background rates as a function of energy for Pass6 (left) and

Pass7 (right). Note that despite the higher high energy effec-

tive area, the high energy background is much reduced in the

transient/S3 class making Pass7 a lot cleaner in the high energy

regime. Notice also that the transient and S3 event selections

have very similar background rates above 100 MeV, in par-

ticular for Pass7, so that the increase in effective area for the

S3 class comes at a very little cost in terms of background con-

tamination above 100 MeV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.5 Relative values of the spectral Figure-of-Merit defined in section

5.2.2 (left: Pass6; right: Pass7). A high energy index of -2.2 was

assumed for this plot but the results remain similar for other

values of high energy index. For Pass7, the source class is to

be preferred for a source below a transient rate of 0.2 Hz

(0.1 when considering other high energy indices) while above

this value the S3 class has the highest FoM for bright sources

with an increase of 510% for Pass7 and 1520% for Pass6

(the transition is hard to see on the figure as it occurs at lower

signal rate of 0.02 Hz). The S3 improvement was higher

in the Pass6 framework compare to the transient class since

this class has been much relaxed in the Pass7 framework. We

note that the y-axis scale is arbitrary as only the relative value

of FoMspectral matters to compare different cuts (the absolute

value depends on the specific burst characteristics).. . . . . . . 75

xxii

6.1 Example of angles of the GBM best localization with the local

earth zenith (top) and with the LAT boresight (bottom). These

plots help determine when a burst location is above the earth

horizon, not too contaminated by earth albedo, and within the

LAT FoV after the burst trigger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

6.2 Quick look at GRB 080825C lightcurve (left panel) and count

map (right panel) around the GBM localization (black cross)

and trigger time. The presence of an increase count rate and a

clustering of events around the GBM localization is visible by

eye although a detailed analysis is necessary in order to claim

for a significant detection of this burst by the LAT. . . . . . . 84

7.1 Position of GBM and LAT detected GRBs on the celestial sphere.

Up to the January 22nd 2010, GBM detected 375 GRBs among

which 14 were detected by the LAT. No signs of anisotropy or

correlation with the galactic plane can be observed given the

level of statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

7.2 Position of GBM and LAT detected GRBs in the instrument

coordinates; more precisely with respect to the angle between

the GRB best localization and the LAT boresight since the az-

imuthal angle has fairly low effect on the instrument response. 92

7.3 LAT GRB detection rates (color ellipses) superimposed on top

of pre-launch expected rates based on the extrapolation of a

Band spectrum fit from the BATSE energy range [105]. The

ellipses inner color indicates the minimal photon energy (green,

yellow and cyan correspond to 0.1, 1 and 10 GeV, respectively),

while their height indicates the uncertainty (?N

1.5 year) on the

corresponding LAT detection rate ( N

1.5 year) due to the small

number N of detected GRBs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

7.4 The fluence at high (0.1 10 GeV) versus low (20 keV 2 MeV)

energies (from [146]), for 4 long (080825C, 080916C, 090217,

090902B) and 2 short (081024B, 090510) duration LAT GRBs.

The diagonal lines indicate high to low energy fluence ratios of

1%, 10%, and 100%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

xxiii

7.5 Lightcurves for GRB 080916C observed by the GBM and the

LAT, from lowest to highest energies. The inset panels give a

view of the first 15 s from the trigger time. In all cases, the bin

width is 0.5s; the per-second counting rate is reported on the

right for convenience. The time windows (a) to (e) represent

the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy. . . . . . . . 98

7.6 Lightcurves for GRB 090510 observed by the GBM and the


view from 0.5 to 1 second after the trigger time. In all cases, the

bin width is 0.2s; the per-second counting rate is reported on

the right for convenience. The time windows (a) to (d) represent


7.7 Lightcurves for GRB 090902B observed by the GBM and the




right for convenience. The time windows (a) to (g) represent


7.8 Lightcurves for GRB 090926A observed by the GBM and the




right for convenience. The time windows (a) to (d) represent


7.9 Lightcurves for GRB 080825C observed by the GBM and the

LAT, from lowest to highest energies. In all cases, the bin width

is 0.5s; the per-second counting rate is reported on the right for

convenience. The time windows (a) to (e) represent the time

selection for time resolved spectroscopy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

xxiv

7.10 The above distributions are based on Monte-Carlo simulations

of the LAT lightcurve for GRB 080825C. The LAT event dis-

tribution was produced using a constant background rate of

0.037 Hz (based on the method presented in appendix A), an es-

timated detected signal above 80 MeV of 11.7 events (13 events

minus 1.3 estimated background events) and a temporal prob-

ability distribution based on the NaI light curve from T0 to

T0 35 s. Left panel: Time distribution for the detection of the

first simulated events. Right panel: Time distribution for the

detection of the 9th simulated events. Based on these distribu-

tions, we could derive the chance probability for a high energy

’delay’ (3.4%) and extended prompt emission (3.7 σ). . . . . . 106

7.11 Time resolved νFν spectra for GRB 080825C in time bin (a),

(b), (c), (d) and (e) as given in figure 7.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

7.12 Left: Fit parameters for the Band function α, β and Epeak as

a function of time. Right: The model spectra for all five time

intervals. The curves end at the energy of the highest-energy

photon observed in each time interval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

7.13 Top: Counts spectrum for the time-integrated (T00.5, T01.0

s) data. The Band + power-law model has been fit to these

data. Middle: The best-fit Band + power-law model for the

time-integrated data plotted as a νFν spectrum. The two com-

ponents are plotted separately and the sum is plotted as the

heavy line. The 1 σ error contours derived from the errors

on the fit parameters are also shown. Bottom: The νFν model

spectra (and 1σ error time resolved spectra in time bin (a),

(b), (c) and (d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

7.14 TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (Band func-

tion) for the time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090510 . . . . . 113

7.15 Best fit model for time interval (b) (seee fig. 7.7). 1 σ error

bars with νFν spectrum are plotted in shaded grey. The ex-

tension of the ¡ 100 MeV power-law component to the lowest

energies ( 50 keV) can be clearly seen. . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

xxv

7.16 Best fit model for the time-integrated data of GRB 090926A.

2 σ error bars with νFν spectrum are plotted in shaded grey

for the Band+CUTPL model while only the best fit model is

plotted for the Band+BPL model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

7.17 Folded and unfolded spectrum for the Band, Band+PL and

Band+CUTPL in time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090926 . 119

7.18 TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (BAND+PL)

on the time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090926A . . . . . . . 120

7.19 TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (Band func-

tion) on time bin (a) of GRB 080825C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

7.20 Lower limit on the bulk Lorentz factor using GRB 080916C,

GRB 090510, GRB 090902B. The energy of the highest energy

photon clearly associated with the burst and the time variability

tν used is indicated for each GRB. We note that more realistic

computations [173], which account for geometrical and dynam-

ical effects, can lead to smaller opacities and thus to smaller

lower limits (by a factor of 3) on Γ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

8.1 The 31 GeV event as ween with the Wired tool which allow a

visual representation of the event with the LAT detector. Left

and right panels represent the XY and YZ views respectively

(Z-axis being parallel to the LAT boresight). Green lines and

crosses are the silicon strips that triggered on this event. While

rectangles are the calorimeter logs where energy deposit have

been detected (size of small red squares are proportional to the

energy deposit in the calorimeter logs). Red rectangles repre-

sents ACD tiles that fired - the two fired tiles at the bottom are

due to x-rays which scatter upward in high energy events. A

monolitic ACD such as in the EGRET instrument would there-

fore not have been able to detect such high energy event. Gray

lines represent best track directions while the yellow track is the

best direction found by the direction reconstruction algorithm. 135

xxvi

8.2 Distribution of the reconstructed energy (CTBBestEnergy) with

respect to the Monte-Carlo energy (McEnergy):McEnergy

CTBBestEnergy1. Starting from the sample of simulated γ-ray photons, a num-

ber of quality cuts were applied to select events that are most

representative of real event for which we are estimating the en-

ergy uncertainty: photon classification, gamma-ray conversion

in the same tracker layer and reconstructed energy around the

measured energy. Vertical dot-dashed lines represent the mean

measured energy (black) as well as the 1 σ (green) and 2 σ

asymetric uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

xxvii

8.3 Light curves of GRB 090510 at different energies. Panel (a):

energy vs. arrival time w.r.t the GBM trigger time for the LAT

photons that passed the transient off-line event selection (red)

and the photons that passed the onboard γ-ray filter (cyan),

and are consistent with the direction of GRB 090510. The solid

and dashed curves are normalized to pass through the highest

energy (31 GeV) photon and represent the relation between a

photon’s energy and arrival time for linear (n=1, solid) and

quadratic (n=2, dashed) LIV, respectively, assuming it is emit-

ted at tstart 30 ms (black; first small GBM pulse onset),

530 ms (red; main 1 MeV emission onset), 630 ms (green;

¡ 100 MeV emission onset), 730 ms (blue; ¡ 1 GeV emission

onset). Photons emitted at tstart would be located along such a

line due to (a positive) LIV induced time delay. Panels (b)(f):

GBM and LAT light curves, from lowest to highest energies.

Panel (f) also overlays energy vs. arrival time for each photon,

with the energy scale displayed on the right side. The dashed-

dotted vertical lines show our 4 different possible choices for

tstart. The gray shaded regions indicate the arrival time of the

31 GeV photon 10 ms (on the right) and of a 750 MeV photon

(during the first GBM pulse) 20 ms (on the left), which can

both constrain a negative time delay. Panels (b) and (c) show

background subtracted light curves for GBM NaI in the 8260

keV band and a GBM BGO in the 0.2605 MeV band, respec-

tively. Panels (d)(f) show, respectively, LAT events passing the

onboard γ-ray filter, LAT transient class events with E ¡ 100

MeV, and LAT transient class events with E ¡ 1 GeV. In all

light curves, the time-bin width is 10 ms. In panels (b)(e) the

per-second count rate is displayed on the right for convenience. 140

xxviii

9.1 Flux ratio F p¥ 10 GeVqF p¥ 1 GeVq as function of redshift,

in the Fermi LAT energy range, for FSRQs and BL Lac popu-

lations. The horizontal solid lines correspond to the mean ra-

tios (0.016 (FSRQ), 0.028 (LSP-BL), 0.045 (ISP-BL) and 0.099

(HSP-BL)) which were obtained by considering the individual

data points rather that the binned averages. . . . . . . . . . . 173

9.2 Highest-energy photons from blazars and GRBs from different

redshifts. Predictions of γγ opacity τγγ 1 (top panel) and

τγγ 3 (bottom panel) from various EBL models are indicated

by lines. Photons above model predictions in this figure traverse

an EBL medium with a high γ-ray opacity. The likelihood of

detecting such photon considering the spectral characteristics

of the source are considered in the method presented in section

9.3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

9.3 Distribution of high-energy photons obtained from Monte-Carlo

simulations of the source J0808-0751 with the EBL attenuation

by Stecker et al. [255]. Emax and Emax σEmax (where σEmax

is the energy uncertainty) are indicated by a solid and dotted

vertical black lines, respectively. The probability of detecting a

photon with energy equal or greater to Emax σEmax is equal

to 6.8 105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

9.4 Distributions of the highest energy photons from simulations

performed with estimates of our intrinsic spectra for GRB 080916C

(top panel) and GRB 090902B (bottom panel), folded with

EBL attenuation calculated using the Stecker et al. [255] base-

line model. The total number of realizations (105) in both the

power-law and power-law convolved with the EBL cases is the

same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

xxix

9.5 Test statistic (TS) as a function of the opacity normalization

parameter calculated from the likelihood ratio test (LRT) for

J1016+0513, J0808-0751, J1504+1029 and GRBs 090902B and

080916C. The ”baseline” model of Stecker et al. [255] has been

used and the rejection for this model can be directly read out as

∆TS between α 1 and the best fit α for the source (horizon-

tal dashed line). The confidence interval for the normalization

parameter can be obtained using ∆TS CL2 where CL is the

confidence level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

9.6 Derived upper limits for the optical depth of γ-rays emitted

at z=1.84 (J0808-0751, J1504+1029), z=1.05 (J1147-3812) and

z=1.71 (J1016+0513). Black arrows: upper limits at 95% c.l.

in all energy bins used to determine the observed flux above

10 GeV. Red arrow: upper limits at 95% c.l. for the highest

energy photon. Blue arrow: upper limit at 99% c.l. for the

highest energy photon. The upper limits are inconsistent with

the EBL models that predict the strongest opacity. . . . . . . 178

A.1 All sky transient background as a function of time. Notice the

large fluctuations (up to a factor of two) as the spacecraft orbits

around the earth and changes geomagnetic latitude. . . . . . . 186

A.2 All-sky CR-background rate for transient class events with en-

ergies 1GeV versus the McIlwain L coordinate of the location

of the spacecraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

A.3 Residual-over-background maps for each of the 15+2 energy

bins. The first (underflow) map corresponds to all the 20

MeV events, and the last (overflow) map corresponds to all the

¡ 300 GeV events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

B.1 GRB 080825C time-integrated spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

xxx

C.1 Distribution of Eiso and Eγ for 25 pre-Swift GRBs with evidence

for a jet-break and beaming. Eγ distribution is shifted by about

two orders of magnitudes compared to Eiso distribution due to

the beaming factor correction. However the dispersion of the

two distribution are very similar (σEiso 0.68, σEγ 0.52) and

broad indicating that GRBs cannot be assumed to be SCs . . 205

C.2 Ep Eiso and Ep Eγ correlations. The 43 gray circles are

all the bursts from our sample that had good enough spectral

observations to find the energy peak of the νFν spectrum, and

the 21 black diamonds are a subset of those bursts with a jet

break found in their optical lightcurve. Solid lines are the best

fit we find for the two correlations (Ep9Eηiso, η 0.328 0.036

and Ep9Eη1γ , η1 0.555 0.089) and dashed lines are the best

fit found by Amati et al. 2003 with 20 bursts (Ep9E0.35iso ) and

Ghirlanda et al. 2004 with 16 bursts (Ep9E0.70γ ). . . . . . . . . 208

C.3 Isotropic average luminosity versus redshift for all bursts in our

sample (86). Different symbols represent bursts observed by

different instruments: BATSE(7), Beppo-SAX (14), HETE-2

(13), Swift (52). For all non-Swift burst, a vertical line is plotted

representing the range of isotropic luminosity in which the burst

would still have been observable by the instrument keeping all

its others parameters fixed. Using the work of Lamb & al. 2005,

the limiting luminosity is taken to be only dependent on the

energy peak Ep of the bursts. For Swift bursts, a conservative

threshold flux of 0.8 ergs s1 cm2 has been chosen. This limit

is shown as a dashed line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

C.4 Variation of the τ parameter with the power law index α of the

luminosity evolution. τ 0 means no correlation which gives

the best value of α 2.21 for the assumed power law form with

a one sigma range of 1.75 to 2.74. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

C.5 The cumulative luminosity distribution ΦpLq (left panel) and

the cumulative redshift distribution σpzq (right panel). Fit to

the cumulative density rate is represented with a point line. . 215

xxxi

C.6 The comoving rate density 9npzq. The dashed line was ob-

tained by fitting the cumulative density distribution by the

parametrized smooth function of equation C.4.2. We also show

comparison of the density rate (from Figure C.6) with three

different SFR scenarios taken from literature. No SFR scenario

seems to match the density rate deduced from our analysis. . . 216

C.7 Comparison of the comoving density rate evolution of the to-

tal sample with that of several sub-sample where we impose

three different luminosity thresholds: Liso ¡ 1049, ¡ 1050, and

¡ 8 1050 ergs.s1. We also looked at a low luminosity pop-

ulation where we imposed of maximal luminosity of 8 1050

ergs.s1. Each sub-sample is subject to the same analysis and

has provided different luminosity evolution as evident from the

different values of α. As expected, the rate at low redshift de-

creases with increasing values of threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . 217

xxxii

Chapter 1

Gamma-Ray Bursts

This chapter aims at introducing the reader to the field of Gamma-Ray Bursts

(GRBs) with a brief introduction to these objects in section 1.1 to set the

stage. Section 1.2 provides a historical overview of GRB observations in the

pre-Fermi era. And section 1.3 summarizes the theoretical interpretation that

were based on these observations.

1.1 Introduction

Gamma-Ray Bursts are the brightest and the most distant explosions ever ob-

served in our universe. They emit brief and intense electromagnetic radiation

in the kilo-electron volt (keV) to Mega-electron volt (MeV) energy range at a

rate of about one per day for the typical GRB instrument sensitivities. GRBs

are now known to be distributed uniformly on the celestial sphere to cosmo-

logical distances, they outshine all other sources in the γ-ray sky during their

short period of emission. The energy released by a single GRB as keV/MeV

γ-rays is comparable to the total energy released by a supernovae explosion

over many months.

Early observations have detected what is now referred to as the prompt

emission which is brief (milliseconds to minutes), highly variable (in time scales

of ms to tens of seconds), non-thermal, and observed mostly in the keV/MeV

energy range. The observed prompt emission in the γ-ray energy band is

believed to be produced by electrons accelerated during collisionless shocks

inside highly collimated relativistic jets [24]. For the majority of GRBs, the

1

2 CHAPTER 1. GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

prompt emission is followed by a smoothly decaying and long-lasting “after-

glow”, observed in longer wavelengths (from X-rays to optical), and believed

to be produced by the deceleration of a relativistic jet in the surrounding in-

terstellar or circumburst medium. GRBs of long durations (typically Á 2s)

are believed to be produced by the collapse of the cores of massive spinning

stars while the progenitor of shorter duration GRBs (typically À 2s) is less

certain, although mergers of compact binaries (neutron star-neutron star or

neutron star-black hole) seem to be a likely candidate.

GRBs are extremely bright objects and are expected to occur and be de-

tectable out to redshifts greater than z 10 and possibly up to z 15 20,

while Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) occur only out to redshift z 7 [2].

GRBs are therefore unique tools for probing the very distant (or very young)

universe as early in time as the epoch of reionization. In particular, GRBs have

a great potential to become a new probe into the evolution history of the uni-

verse (star formation history, metallicity at different redshifts), its large-scale

structure, and the properties of the earliest generations of stars.

The afterglow of GRBs passes through multiple regions filled with gas

or radiation fields around their progenitor before it reaches the earth: the

circumstellar medium (CSM) around the GRB progenitor, the star-forming

region surrounding the GRB (HII Region, H2 Cloud), the ambient interstellar

medium (ISM) of the host galaxy, the baryonic halo of the galaxy (Halo gas),

and the intergalactic medium (IGM). Spectroscopic studies on the absorption

features imprinted on the GRB afterglow at each of these regions provide

unique information regarding the regions’ chemical and nuclear composition

and density. GRBs are also believed to be intense sources of neutrinos, cosmic

rays (up to ultra-high energies 1020 eV), and gravitational waves. Observations

of these emissions can potentially answer questions in astrophysics, particle

physics, and general relativity.

The diverse and intriguing properties of GRBs make them the focus of

intense scientific research and debate, and the observational target of multiple

instruments. Despite the fact that we have known about GRBs for almost forty

years, they continue to spark scientific interest and their origin and mechanism

remain to be known. Table 1.1 gives a non-exhaustive list of past and current

instruments which measure the keV to TeV gamma-ray emission of GRBs.

1.1. INTRODUCTION 3

Some future instruments that promise new insights into GRBs are: SVOM

(Space-based multi-band astronomical Variable Objects Monitor), a fast re-

pointing γ-ray, X-ray and optical instrument with a ground segment allowing

optical observation of the prompt emission and redshift measurement (launch

scheduled for the end of 2014), HAWC (High Altitude Water Cherenkov) the

successor of MILAGRO currently in construction, or CTA (Cherenkov Tele-

scope Array) the next generation air Cherenkov telescopes (target first light

before the end of this decade). Further experiments hope to detect neutrino

emission from those objects (ANTARES, IceCube...) and gravitational-wave

emission (VIRGO, LIGO, LISA...) which would be a by-product of compact

binaries mergers.

Instrument Observing energy range Period ofoperation

GRBsdetected

Vela 3-6 200 keV - 1 MeV 1967 - 1979 100CGRO 50-300 keV (BATSE) 1991- 2000 2704

20 MeV - 30 GeV (EGRET) 5BeppoSAX 2 - 600 keV 1996 - 2002 944Milagrito-Milagro

100 GeV - 100 TeV 1997 - now 1?

HETE II 2 - 400 keV 2000 - now 80Integral 15 keV - 10 MeV 2002 - now 600Swift 15 - 150 keV 2004 - now 600MAGIC 50 GeV - 30 TeV 2004 - now 0AGILE 10 keV - 700 keV (SA+MCAL) 2007 - now 130

30 MeV - 30 GeV (GRID) 3Fermi 10 keV - 40 MeV (GBM) 2008 - now 400

20 MeV - 300 GeV (LAT) 14

Table 1.1: List of past and operating instruments that have claimed GRBdetection along with the approximate numbers of detected GRBs detected asof January 2010.

The remainder of this chapter will give an overview of our current knowl-

edge regarding GRBs. A historical overview of GRB observations will be given

in section 1.2, and the currently accepted model for the progenitor and mech-

anism of GRBs will be presented in section 1.3.


1.2 History of GRB Observations

1.2.1 The first years (1967-1991)

GRBs were serendipitously discovered in 1967 by the U.S. Vela satellites, op-

erated by Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose purpose was to monitor

from space violations of the nuclear-test ban treaty by looking at brief X-ray

and γ-ray flashes, signatures of nuclear explosions. The Vela satellites carried

omnidirectional γ-ray detectors which detected bursts of γ-rays soon after they

were launched. These bursts were eventually identified as coming from space.

The detection of the first GRBs was immediately classified and not made pub-

lic until seven years later [3], when sixteen GRB detections were reported in

the 0.2 1.5 MeV energy range. GRB 670702 is known as the first GRB de-

tected by humans (Fig. 1.1). After the Vela satellites, a number of instruments

were built to detect GRBs. However, the number of bursts detected was small

and the angular resolution was very poor making understanding their origin

extremely difficult.

Figure 1.1: Lightcurve of the first GRB detected by the military satellitesVela 3 and 4. The discovery of the detection of brief and sudden γ-ray flashesnot originating from Earth was made public only 7 years later [3]. Credit: R.Klebesadel, I. Strong & R. Olson

1.2. HISTORY OF GRB OBSERVATIONS 5

1.2.2 BATSE (1991-2000)

A breakthrough in the field of GRB research happened with the numerous

GRB detections from the Burst And Transient Source Explorer (BATSE),

which flew, with other instruments, on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Ob-

servatory (CGRO). BATSE, which operated from 1991 to 2000, detected γ-rays

in the 15 keV 2 MeV energy range, had a wide field of view (4π str minus

30% because of Earth obscuration), and a moderate angular resolution ( 4o).

It detected 2704 GRBs [4], significantly more than the total number of GRBs

in the pre-existing catalog (a few hundred). In combination with the En-

ergetic Gamma-Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET), a gamma-ray detector

also aboard the CGRO, GRB observations were extended in the 15 keV 30

GeV energy range.

Before BATSE, the distance scale of GRBs was unknown. The scientific

community was divided among theories predicting distance scales ranging from

our own solar system to the edges of the known universe. Even though GRBs

were observed uniformly on the sky, it was believed that the reason for this

uniform-in-space distribution instead of the pancake shape of our galaxy was

that the pre-BATSE instruments were not sensitive enough to see the galactic

structure of the Milky Way.

BATSE’s improved spatial sensitivity proved that GRBs are isotropically

distributed on the celestial sphere (Fig. 1.2) ruling out possible correlations

with the local distribution of stellar or gaseous mass (our galaxy, the LMC,

M31, globular clusters, the Virgo cluster, etc...) which is not isotropic. This

piece of evidence strongly suggested a cosmological origin for GRBs although

an extended halo around our galaxy could still generate a uniform distribution

similar to the one observed.

Key GRB properties have emerged from the extensive dataset of BATSE-

detected GRBs. The light curves of GRBs showed great diversity, from smooth,

fast rise, and quasi-exponential decays, to curves with many peaks and with a

high variability, ranging from timescales of milliseconds to minutes (Fig. 1.3).

The duration of GRBs is usually described by the T90 parameter, which

is equal to the time over which the burst emits from 5% to 95% of its mea-

sured counts. The T90 distribution of GRBs (Fig. 1.4) spans a long range of


+90

-90

-180+180

2704 BATSE Gamma-Ray Bursts

10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4

Fluence, 50-300 keV (ergs cm-2)

Figure 1.2: Locations of all 2704 GRBs detected by BATSE in galactic coor-dinates. The isotropic distribution of GRB localizations suggested that GRBsare most likely extragalactic sources. Source: [5]

durations and seems to show a bimodal shape. This led to the phenomeno-

logical division of GRBs into two categories: “short bursts” having T90 À 2 s,

and “long bursts” having T90 Á 2 s with short bursts constituting 30% of

the BATSE sample and quite different spectral properties between these two

categories. BATSE measured the fluence of a burst in different channels, each

one corresponding to a different energy range. The “Hardness Ratio,” defined

as the ratio of the fluence in channel 3 (100 300 keV) over the fluence in

channel 2 (50 100 keV), was a measure of the spectral hardness of a burst.

Short bursts were found to have on average larger hardness ratios than long

bursts, as shown on Figure 1.5. The existence of two populations of bursts

was suggestive of the existence of two kinds of progenitors and inner engines

during the BATSE era.

The measured γ-ray spectra are non-thermal, and evolve with time from

hard to soft. The time-averaged spectrum is found to follow an ad hoc function,

called the “Band function” SpEq [8], given by:


Figure 1.3: Diverse light curves of GRBs detected by BATSE. Source: J. T.Bonnell (NASA/GSFC)

SpEq A$&%

E100keV

αe EE0 E ¤ pα βqE0

pαβqE0

100keV

αβ E

100keV

βeβα E ¥ pα βqE0,

(1.1)

where α and β are the low- and high-energy spectral indices, respectively.

The parameters were estimated by measurements of bright BATSE bursts to

be on average α 1, β 2.25, and E0 250 keV [9]. The spectral energy

distribution ν Fν peaks at the peak energy Ep p2 αqE0. Figure 1.6 shows

an example of a spectral fit using the Band function. It is generally believed


Figure 1.4: Duration (T90) distribution of the GRBs detected by BATSE.The bimodal distribution is indicative of two populations of bursts separatedaround T90 2 s. Source: [6]

that this prompt emission spectrum originates from from synchrotron emission

produced by electrons accelerated to a power-law distribution of energy within

internal shocks. However this explanation faces some difficulties that still

remain to be solved. An example of such difficulty is the fact that synchrotron

emission cannot produce a spectral index harder than 23

(refered to as the

line of death) but BATSE observed a substantial fraction of its bursts with

α ¡ 23

which is a puzzle that still remain to be solved (instrumental or

physical explanation have been proposed without reaching any consensus).

1.2.3 BeppoSAX & HETE-2 (1996-2007)

The angular resolution of gamma-ray instruments such as BATSE was still

too coarse for optical or X-ray telescopes (which have a small field-of-view

necessitating few arc-minute localizations) to search for a burst counterpart

which was theoretically predicted at the time [22, 165]. This in particular

prevented the identification of the progenitors and the environments of GRBs,

as well as the measurement of their distances for which optical spectroscopy

is needed. As a result, a verification of the cosmological origins of GRBs was

still lacking. A breakthrough happened in early 1997, with the Dutch/Italian

satellite BeppoSAX (1996-2002) which was equipped with a coded aperture


Figure 1.5: Possible correlation between the hardness ratio and the durationpT90q of BATSE GRBs. Short bursts (T90 À 2 s) have higher hardness ratiosthan long bursts (T90 Á 2 s), suggesting that short and long bursts consti-tute two separate populations, probably originating from different progenitors.Source : [7]

hard X-ray camera and could localize GRBs with a precision of 10 arcmin,

and a wide field X-ray telescope aboard the satellite to follow-up by repointing

of the satellite (within 3 4 hours). This allowed the detection of the first

fading X-ray emission from a long burst: GRB 970228 (Fig. 1.7). After

processing data for a few hours, GRBs localization are accurate enough for

ground-based follow-up observations at optical, radio, and other wavelengths.

These observations initially identified a fading optical counterpart, and, after

the burst had faded, long-duration deep imaging identified a very distant (z 0.498) host galaxy at the location of the burst. This observation was the

first conclusive piece of evidence that long GRBs are cosmological sources.

BeppoSAX also paved the way for identifications of more host galaxies and

for redshift determinations through spectroscopy of the GRB host galaxy, and

settled the distance-scale argument for long GRBs [10].

The distance measurement of GRBs gave access to intrinsic properties of

their sources for the first time. In particular the immense energy release in

the form of γ-rays. The typical γ-ray fluences measured by BATSE are of

the order of 105 ergcm2 which lead to an isotropically-emitted energy of

Eiso 1053 erg. The total γ-ray fluence can be significantly smaller if the


Figure 1.6: Band function fit to GRB911127 with the following fit parametersα 0.967 0.022 and β 2.427 0.07. The Band function was found tobe a very good phenomenological description of the prompt GRB spectrum inthe sub-MeV regime. Source: [8]

emission is beamed as seems to be the case (see section 1.3.2 for further details).

After BeppoSAX, the High-Energy Transient Explorer (HETE-2) (2000-

2007) [11] performed more high-quality afterglow observations and helped

identify a new class of sources called ‘X-Ray Flashes’, similar to softer GRBs

identified earlier by BeppoSAX. HETE-2 also made the first observations of

long GRBs spatially associated with Type Ic supernovae (see subsection 1.3.1).

By 2005, afterglows had been detected from about fifty long GRBs, but

there were no such detections for short GRBs. The afterglows of short GRBs

were hard to detect because the detectors had to achieve precise localization

using a smaller number of photons. The afterglow from a short GRB was de-

tected first by the Swift satellite (described next) which has a higher sensitivity

and fast slewing (re-pointing) capabilities.

1.2.4 Swift (2004 - present)

In the instruments described in the previous section, there was an 8 hour

or longer delay between the initial burst detection and the start of the optical

follow-up observations. A new satellite, called Swift [12], that can observe the

afterglow of GRBs rapidly after its detection, was launched in 2004. Swift has

a γ-ray detector combined with a wide field X-ray and an optical/ultraviolet


Figure 1.7: Localization of GRB 970228 observed by BeppoSAX. The leftimage is the X-ray emission in the γ-ray instrument error box taken 8 hoursafter trigger while the right image is taken 3 days after trigger. A faintingsource was clearly detected at the GRB location which is the first detection ofan X-ray afterglow. Through the subsequent measurement of the host galaxyredshift, this was the first conclusive evidence of the extragalactic nature oflong GRBs.

telescope, and is capable of repointing automatically in seconds. It can localize

afterglows with arcsec accuracy a minute or so after the burst and facilitates

follow-up observations in gamma-ray, X-ray, and optical wavelengths.

Swift’s capabilities have enabled us to study the transition between the

energetic and chaotic prompt emission, and the smoothly decaying afterglow

in lower energy bands. Figure 1.8 gives a synthetic sketch of typical afterglow

transition behavior observed by Swift [13]: a fast decay (phase I) followed

by a plateau (phase II) which in a few thousands seconds reaches the typi-

cal afterglow decay with index 1.2 already observed pre-Swift (phase III)

and finally a possible spectral break (transition from phase III to phase IV)

which provides support to the collimated-emission model of GRBs and allowed

to significantly constraint the energetics of GRBs (see subsection 1.3.2). Fur-

thermore, it provided, for the first time, observations of the afterglows of short

bursts, which led to redshift measurements and verified the cosmological origin

of short GRBs.

Swift’s observations of short GRBs showed that, unlike long GRBs, they

usually originate from regions with a low star-formation rate. This suggested


that short GRBs are related to old stellar populations, possibly from mergers

of compact-object binaries (i.e., neutron star-neutron star or neutron star-

black hole). Furthermore, even though supernova features such as red bumps

and late-time rebrightening were detected in the afterglows of most long GRBs

close enough to allow such a detection (few close-by long GRBs do not show

such feature and are still a puzzle to the community: GRB 980425 [56] and

GRB 030329 [57]), there was no evidence of such features in the afterglows

of short GRBs. These observations strengthened the case for long and short

GRBs having different kinds of progenitors: massive stars for long GRBs versus

compact-object binaries, the leading candidate for short GRBs. An important

piece of evidence strengthening the merger scenario was the discovery of sig-

nificant spatial offsets of short GRB afterglow with respect to their supposed

host. This can be easily interpreted as the escape of a binary system from

the host galaxy via an initial kick applied after one (or both) of the compan-

ions underwent supernova explosion and the time needed for the two objects

to loose enough gravitational energy before a final catastrophic merger. This

time offset is long enough (on order of few tens of Megayears) for the system

to significantly escape its host galaxy.

The GRB afterglows, as observed by Swift, decayed on a power law and

progressively softened from X-rays, to optical, to radio. As of 2010, Swift

detected more than 500 bursts in γ-rays, with almost all of them having an

X-ray afterglow.

Swift is sensitive to a lower energy range (15 150 keV) and to bursts of

longer durations than other detectors. Therefore, it is more sensitive to GRBs

of higher redshifts, since the signal from such GRBs is more redshifted and

time dilated. Due to its increased sensitivity to distant GRBs, Swift observed

GRB 090423, the most distant GRB ever observed. GRB 090423 had a redshift

of z 8.2, and when it exploded the age of the universe was less than 700

million years old (figure 1.10). The redshift distribution of Swift GRBs and

pre-Swift GRBs is shown in Fig. 1.9. As can be seen, Swift GRBs are on

average more distant than pre-Swift GRBs.

1.3. THE GRB MODEL 13

Figure 1.8: Sketch of an afterglow light curve based on Swift’s observations.Phase “0,” corresponds to the end of the prompt emission. Four power-lawlight-curve segments together with a flaring component are identified in theafterglow phase. The components marked with solid lines are the featurescommon to most long GRBs, while the ones marked with dashed lines areobserved in only a fraction of GRBs. The typical spectral indices of the power-law decay are shown for each segment. The break between regions III and IVoccurs simultaneously for all observed frequencies (achromatic break) and isrelated to the geometry of the GRB relativistic jets. Source: [13]

1.3 The GRB Model

Despite more than 40 years of observation, the basic processes underlying the

GRB phenomena are still poorly understood. In this section I will describe the

theoretical model that has been derived to interpret GRB observations. As a

warning, let me mention that this model is neither complete nor self-consistent

and I will do my best to stress areas that are source of controversy. For an

extensive review on the physics of GRBs, the progenitors and hosts of GRBs,

see [29, 30].

1.3.1 Progenitors of GRBs

Long GRBs

The light curves of the prompt emission show a variability of milliseconds to

many minutes. The shortest variability (∆t 1 ms) imposes a strong upper


Figure 1.9: Redshift distributions of GRBs detected by Swift (up to April2010) and of GRBs detected by pre-Swift satellites. The average redshift ofthe Swift sample (red, 115 bursts with mean 2.2) is higher than redshiftof the previous observations (blue, 44 bursts with mean 1.35) because ofthe greater sensitivity of Swift to distant GRBs. Dot-dashed curve is theexpectation of the redshift distribution of GRBs predicted by a simple model(see [16] for details). Source: [15]

limit via causality argument on the size of the inner engine: R À c∆tp1zq 107 cm 100 km. An upper limit on the mass of the object can also be

obtained by requiring that the size of the engine is at least the Schwarzschild

radius RSh 2GMc2: R ¡ RSh ñM c3∆tp2p1zqGq 1035g 100M@.

Therefore, the object(s) responsible for GRB events has to be a stellar compact

object with stellar black holes and neutron stars being natural candidates.

The fact that the burst duration is usually longer than the variability suggests

a prolonged and intermittent inner-engine activity in two or three different

simultaneous time scales. In particular, an explosive model that releases the

energy at once is disfavored as it would require interactions with a clumpy

environment which is quite inefficient at emitting γ-rays and would pose a

serious challenge to the overall energetics.

We also note that: LEdd 1.5 1038 MM@

À 1.5 1040 ergs.s1 where LEdd

is the Eddigton luminosity above which gravitation is dominated by radiation


Figure 1.10: Redshif distributions of GRBs detected up to the 23rd of April2009, when the highest redshift GRBs was discovered at z 8.2. Credit: EdoBerger (Harvard/CfA)

pressure which pushes matter outward. However the isotropically-radiated lu-

minosity is many orders of magnitude higher than this value (L Á 1050 erg.s1)

which means that GRBs must be an explosive phenomena. All the above sug-

gest that the inner engine of GRBs consists of a massive stellar object, most

likely a newborn black hole, with a massive (mass Á 0.1Mdq disk accreting

onto it. The accretion explains the prolonged activity and the different time

scales, and the black hole satisfies the size and energy requirements.

There are multiple observational pieces of evidence that suggest that not

all GRBs are the same, and that there are different kinds of progenitors and

inner engines. Specifically, the duration and the hardness ratio-duration distri-

butions (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5) show that there are two kinds of bursts: short-hard

bursts and long-soft bursts.

Long bursts are observed in spiral galaxies displaying more star forming ac-

tivity than an average spiral galaxy and when high resolution is granted, they

are usually located in regions where high mass stars are formed and is where

massive stars, with their short lifetime, die. Additionally, supernova-emission

spectra were detected superimposed on the afterglows of a few close-by long


GRBs ([52, 56, 57]). In 1998, the optical telescope ROTSE discovered a tran-

sient emission coincident in space and time with BeppoSAX/BATSE long GRB

980425 [54]. The location, spectrum and light curve of the optical transient

led to its identification as a very luminous Type Ic supernova1 (SN 1998bw)

[55, 56]. This detection was a first of its kind, and suggested that long GRBs

are related to supernovae, and therefore to the deaths of massive stars. Be-

cause GRB 980425 was very subenergetic comparing to other GRBs (isotropic

energy emitted was 8 1047 erg instead of the usual 1051 1054 erg), the

supernova-GRB connection was initially called into question. However, a few

years later, a similar event happened. Emission from a supernova (SN2003dh

[57]) was detected on the afterglow of long GRB 030329. This time, the as-

sociated GRB had a normal isotropic energy. In addition to those events,

there have also been red emission ‘bumps’ superimposed on the afterglows of

GRBs, with color, timing, and brightness consistent with the emission of a

Type Ic supernova similar to SN 1998bw (see [58] and references therein). All

the above suggest that a good fraction of long GRBs are probably related to

the death of massive stars. The massive star involved is most likely a Wolf-

Rayet star2, given that absorption features in the afterglow of long GRBs [53]

were explained by the presence of the fast-moving wind of such a star. For

some unknown reason, the collapse of the core of the Wolf-Rayet star creates a

GRB3 instead of just a type Ic supernova. The specific conditions that lead to

the creation of a GRB is one of the open questions of the field. Observational

and theoretical evidence imply that high rotational speeds, high progenitor

masses, and regions of low metallicity [59, 17] favor the creation of GRBs.

Some of the differences between short and long GRBs come from the fact that

the engine of long GRBs operates at the center of a collapsing star, therefore

it is covered by the mantle of the star, while the engine of short GRBs is more

or less exposed.

1A Type Ic supernova has no hydrogen in its spectrum and lacks strong lines of He I andSi II.

2Massive stars (Mass¡ 20Md) that rapidly lose their outer envelope by means of a verystrong stellar wind (before supernova explosion).

3It is believed that most, if not all, long GRBs are accompanied with a Type Ic supernova


Short GRBs

Short duration bursts are also observed in star forming galaxies but with lower

star formation activity and lower metallicity than in the case of long GRB

hosts. When a good localization is available, short bursts are primarily ob-

served in regions with low or no star formation, therefore they are likely to be

related to old stellar populations. Also for some of them, the afterglow posi-

tion is observed with a larger offset with respect to the supposed host galaxy.

This suggests that these bursts could be the result of mergers of compact bi-

naries, such as neutron star-neutron star or neutron star-black hole which live

long and escape far from the star forming region where they were born. The

binary loses rotational energy through the emission of gravitational radiation

and eventually merges, forming a black hole and an accretion disk surround-

ing it which is a similar system as obtained from the collapse of the core of

a massive stars. A similar emission model can therefore apply to short and

long burst after this stage. Another piece of evidence indicating that short

burst are not associated with the death of massive stars is the absence of an

associated supernovae in any deep long-duration observations of the optical

afterglows of short bursts where such an afterglow should have been detected

[50, 7, 51].

According to the generally accepted model of the progenitor and the emis-

sion mechanism of GRBs, GRBs start with a cataclysmic event, such as the

merger of two compact objects or the collapse of the core of a rotating massive

star, followed by the creation of a rapidly spinning black hole and an accreting

envelope around it. This model, called the “Collapsar model”, was initially

proposed to explain long GRBs [17]. However, it was realized that the merg-

ers of compact-object binaries that create short GRBs also produce a black

hole-accretion disk system similar to the one in the collapsar model.

The collapse of the accreting material that is near the plane perpendicular

to the rotation axis of the envelope is somewhat inhibited by the strong cen-

trifugal forces. Most of the accretion happens through two funnels that form

on the rotation axis of the black hole (on the axis of rotation). The sources

for the deposited energy are the gravitational and rotational energy of the

accreting envelope and the spinning black hole which are converted to large

amounts of kinetic energy ( 1050 ergs) near the polar region possibly through


neutrino-driven winds [24], or magneto-hydrodynamic processes [19], magnetic

instabilities in the disk [20]. The relative contribution of each source (envelope

or black hole) is unknown and depends on which energy-transfer mechanism

is more efficient. It is more likely that the largest fraction is supplied by the

gravitational energy of the envelope.

Outward radiation and matter pressure gradually build up at the poles;

however, they are initially smaller than the pressure from the in-falling ma-

terial. A point is reached, at which the matter density over the poles and

the accretion rate are reduced to a level where they cannot counter-balance

the outward pressure. At that point an explosion occurs. The subsequent

stages of the phenomena comprise the magneto-hydrodynamic development of

the ejected plasma, its interaction with the external medium as well as the

dominant radiation mechanisms involved throughout this evoution. A model

that has been fairly successful to describe pre-Fermi data is the so-called

‘fireball’ model which we will describe after some general description of the

ultra-relativistic plasma outflow.

While the general picture described by the collapsar model is accepted

by the scientific community, there is little consensus regarding some of its

details. The inner engine of GRBs has not been observed until now, so we

can make only indirect inferences about its nature. As a result, there is still

uncertainty regarding many aspects of the model, such as how exactly the jets

are formed; which mechanism transfers energy from the inner engine to the

jets; the baryonic load of the jets; the jets’ bulk Lorentz factor; which physical

processes are involved in the internal shocks; what specific circumstances lead

to the creation of a GRB instead of just a supernova, etc...

In the following, I will give a brief review of some of the observed GRB

properties along with their physical explanation when such an explanation

exists. I will also mention, where applicable, how these properties are related

to the collapsar model.

1.3.2 The GRB plasma outflow

After the initial explosion of the progenitor, a hot baryon-loaded e, e, γ

plasma (also called the ‘fireball’) pushes outwards through the layers of the

stellar envelope. Matter and pressure gradients and magnetic fields collimate


the outflow, until it finally manages to erupt from the surface of the object

and break free in the form of two opposite narrow jets of half-opening angle

of order of a few degrees.

It was rapidly realized in the BATSE era that the plasma responsible for the

γ-ray emission of GRB must be ultra-relativistic. The next section describes

this argument in more detail.

Relativistic expansion

The GRB fireball has a high radiation density, so photon pairs of center of

mass energy ¥ 2me c2 should readily create ee pairs, instead of escaping

from the fireball. A calculation using typical values yields an optical depth

τγγ 1015 [39]. In such a case, the emitted spectrum should be thermal and

should not contain an MeV or higher-energy component. This is the source of

the so-called ‘Compactness problem’, since the observed spectrum is a power

law and extends up to energies of at least tens of GeVs, with no indication of

a cutoff for long GRBs and up to tens of MeV for short GRBs.

This paradox can be solved if the radiating material is moving with rela-

tivistic velocities towards us. In such a case, the observed GeV/MeV photons

actually have lower energies in the fireball frame of reference. Therefore, the

optical depth of the fireball for the observed photons is actually lower, since

there is now a smaller number of photon pairs with a center of mass energy

over the pair creation threshold (2mec2). If we assume that the photon ener-

gies inside the fireball are distributed on a power law IoEα, then this effect

will decrease the opacity by factor Γ2α, where Γ is the bulk Lorentz factor

of the fireball. Furthermore, because of relativistic contraction, the apparent

linear dimension along the line of sight of the source moving towards us will

be smaller by a factor of Γ2 than its real size. The combined effect is that the

optical depth is actually lower by a factor of Γ2α2 [40] than what it would

be for a non-relativistic jet, thus solving the paradox. Based on the above

considerations and the amount of detected MeV/GeV radiation from GRBs,

lower limits on the bulk Lorentz factor of Γ Á 15 were placed for short GRBs

[41] and Γ Á 100 for long GRBs [40].

Another piece of evidence supporting the case for relativistic motion of the

ejecta comes from the fact that estimates of the size of the afterglow two weeks


after the burst, independently provided by radio scintillation [42] and lower-

frequency self absorption [43], lead to relativistic velocities for the afterglow

expansion of the burst.

As a consequence of the ultra-relativistic velocities inferred for the jet, the

baryon loading of the fireball plasma must be small (Mbc2 ! E0, where MB is

the total mass of the baryons, and E0 is the total energy of the fireball).

Energetics and collimated emission

The afterglow light curves of long GRBs exhibit achromatic spectral breaks

(Fig. 1.8) that can be explained by assuming that the geometry of the ejecta is

conical (on two opposite jets) instead of spherical. Because the fireball is mov-

ing with relativistic velocities, its emission is beamed. Consider an observer

that is inside the projection of the emission cone of the fireball. When the bulk

Lorentz factor of the fireball is very high, the relativistically-beamed radiation

will be emitted in a very narrow cone. As a result, the observer will not be able

to see the emission from all parts of the fireball and radiation from the conical

boundary of the fireball will not be visible by the observer. As the GRB pro-

gresses, the surface area of the fireball cone expands (as 9t2), and the emitted

radiation density drops inversely proportional to the area, causing a gradual

decrease in the observed brightness of the burst. Because of the expansion, the

bulk Lorentz factor is reduced, and the relativistic beaming becomes wider.

As a result, a larger fraction of the surface of the fireball will come into the

field of view of the observer (middle picture), which compensates the decline of

the observed GRB brightness (now 9t1.2 instead of 9t2). Eventually, all of

the surface of the burst becomes visible to the observer. The decay rate of the

burst’s brightness now depends only on the expansion of the fireball’s surface

and becomes proportional to t2. This transition, appearing as an achromatic

break in the afterglow light curve, has been observed on many GRBs. For the

GRB afterglows with no observed jet breaks, it is usually assumed that the

breaks happened at a tim after the observation has stopped (corresponding to

jets with wide angles). However for a few burst with extremely long follow up

observations, the non-detection of any jet break remains an unsolved puzzle.

The typical GRB gamma-ray fluence on the Earth is of the order of 105 ergcm2.

If we assume an isotropic emission from GRBs at cosmological distance of


z 2, this fluence would result to an isotropically-emitted energy of Eiso 1053 erg. Such an energy emission is considerably higher than the electro-

magnetic energy release from a typical supernova (1051 erg in few months or

1049 erg in hundreds of seconds), and a better explanation is needed. However,

if the emission is confined in a narrow cone, the energy requirement will be

reduced. If the emission actually happened in a solid angle ∆Ω, then the true

amount of emitted energy (corrected for beaming) is

Eγ 2Eiso ∆Ω4π 2Eiso1 cospθjetq

2 Eiso

θ2jet

2

where θjet is the half opening angle of the emission cone. Frail et al. [44]

estimated θjet for a sample of GRBs, based on the occurrence time of the

achromatic break in their afterglow curves. Based on θjet, they calculated the

true amount of emitted energy from the isotropic-equivalent amount. Their

result (Fig. 1.11) showed that even though the isotropic-equivalent emitted

energy spans a wide energy range p4 1052 2 1054 ergq, the true amount

of emitted energy spans a considerably narrower energy range centered at

3 1050 erg. This shows that the energy emission of GRBs is comparable

to that of supernovae. The fact that the emission is confined within a cone

also increases the implied rate of GRBs by the same factor ( θ2jet), since only

GRBs with their emission cones pointing to the Earth are detected.

The analysis by Frail et al. [44], that the energy release by GRBs might be

narrowly concentrated, led people to think that GRBs might have a standard

energy reservoir and thus be used as standard candles to constraint cosmolog-

ical evolution. However, jet breaks are not observed in many GRBs (due to

lack of optical afterglow and considerable structure in the X-ray afterglow or

simply absence of any sign of jet break up to the latest times of observation.

This has put the whole idea of jet breaks and calculating Eγ into question.

The discovery of correlations between a distance independent parameter (or

one which scales simply with redshift) and a distance dependent parameters

have brought hope in the field although these correlations are subject to wide

statistical scatter and more importantly strong bias which are not easy to get

rid of. Examples of such correlations are the lag-luminosity (lag refers to the

time offset between two different energy band) or variability luminosity rela-

tions [45, 46] and the correlation between Epeak and Eiso [47] or Egamma [48].


Figure 1.11: Top: distribution of the isotropic-equivalent energy output inγ-rays for a sample of GRBs with known redshifts. Bottom: distribution ofthe γ-ray energy output corrected for the collimation of the jet (collimationangle has been deduced of late time achromatic break). Arrows indicate loweror upper limits to the collimation-corrected energy (when a jet break has notbeen clearly identified). Source: [44]

During my Ph.D, I worked on a paper adressing some of the contentious issues

in this field as well as presenting a statistical technique properly taking sim-

ple instrumental bias into account which allows us to derive GRB luminosity

function and density rate from a sample of bursts with measured redshift [49,

see Appendix C].

The ‘fireball’ model

We now describe the ‘fireball’ model which is illustrated in Figure 1.12. As

discussed above, the ultimate source of GRB is associated with a catastrophic

energy release in stellar mass objects. Most of this energy goes into neutri-

nos and gravitational waves while a significantly smaller fraction (0.1%-1%)


goes into a high temperature fireball (kT Á MeV) consisting of e, γ-rays and

baryons. Neither neutrino nor gravitational waves have been detected from

a GRB, only the electromagnetic output of the fireball, which despite being

a small fraction of the total energy release, still constitute a formidable en-

ergy output much more intense than any other explosive event in the universe

besides the Big Bang.

In order for the jet to reach ultra-relativistic velocities, a small baryon

loading is required to keep the kinetic energy of the jet at a reasonable level.

For very low baryon loading, the radiation may decouple from the fireball

electrons before reaching the photospheric radius. This would result in most

of the radiation energy not being converted to kinetic energy prior to radiation

decoupling and therefore most of the fireball energy would escape in the form

of thermal radiation. As a consequence, the final bulk Lorentz factor must be

within the range 102 À Γ À 103 in order to allow for the production of the

observed non-thermal γ-ray spectrum [21].

In the first stages following the ejection of the jet (preburst), the density of

the jet is very high, and most of the radiation produced in it is readily absorbed

and only a thermal component is emitted at the surface of the hot plasma.

As it expands, the optical depth is reduced, and non-thermal radiation can

escape from it. The radius over which such non-thermal radiation can escape

is usually referred to as the photospheric radius. Collision of the relativistic

plasma with the circumstellar medium [22, 165] and internal collisions within

the ejecta itself [24, 25, 26] were proposed as possible dissipation processes.

Most GRBs show variability on time scales much shorter (102 up to 105

times shorter) than the total GRB duration. Such variability is hard to ex-

plain in models where the energy dissipation is due to external shocks [27].

Therefore, it is believed that internal collisions are responsible for the prompt

emission of γ-rays. The internal shocks happen inside the jet and between

shells of material moving at different velocities. Such shells can be created

if the energy-deposition mechanism is intermittent at the source for example.

During these shocks, the jet’s electrons are accelerated to ultra-relativistic ve-

locities (probably via first-order Fermi mechanism [31]) and emit synchrotron

radiation. Each peak of the prompt light curve is considered to be created by

such an internal shock. The ejected shells of different Lorentz factor ∆Γ Γ


are initially separated by c∆T and they catch up with each other at an internal

shock (or dissipation) radius rdis c∆TΓ2 3 1014∆T1msΓ22 cm.

Figure 1.12: Sketch showing the different steps involved in the ‘fireball’ modelwith internal shocks producing the γ-ray prompt emission and external shockwith the interstellar medium or the star wind responsible for the afterglowphase observed in radio, optical, X-ray, γ-ray. Source: [272]

As the fireball expands, it drives a relativistic shock into the surround-

ing environment filled by interstellar medium, star wind, etc.... This interac-

tion smoothly and slowly decelerates the jet. At a typical deceleration radius

rdec p3E04πnextmpc2Γ2q13 5 1016E

1353 n

130 Γ

232.5 cm, the initial bulk

Lorentz factor has decreased to approximately half its original value (next is

the matter density of the external medium). Similarly to internal shocks, rel-

ativistic particles emit non-thermal radiation observed as an afterglow. And

the afterglow first peaks in gamma rays and gradually softens to longer wave-

lengths, down to radio as the jet is attenuated by the circumburst medium.

Synchrotron emission by relativistic electrons has been quite successful to ex-

plain the temporal and spectral properties of GRB afterglows [28].

γ-ray emission mechanisms

According to the fireball model, the observed radiation is produced by ener-

getic particles produced in internal or external shock fronts. In these shocks,

energy is transferred to the electrons in the jet through a diffusive shock accel-

eration mechanism refered as the ‘first order Fermi mechanism’ [31] in which


magnetic field irregularities in the shocks keep scattering the particles back and

forth multiple times. In ultra-relativistic shocks, electrons gain an amount of

energy of the order of Γ2sh during the first crossing, where Γsh is the Lorentz

factor of the shock front measured in the rest frame of the jet while subsequent

crossings are less efficient, with gains of the order of unity [32]. During these

shocks, the electrons are accelerated to ultra-relativistic velocities (γe up to

1000) and emit synchrotron radiation.

The shocks may also accelerate protons. However, the power of the syn-

chrotron emission from protons is approximately pmempq2 3 107) of the

power from the electrons for the same Lorentz factor. Additionally, the baryon

loading4 of the jets is believed to be low making a hadronic component in the

keV-MeV range unlikely. Therefore the detected radiation is believed to be

produced by electrons.

While the predictions of the synchrotron model (Fig. 1.13) are in reason-

able agreement with afterglow observations [33, 34], there are some inconsis-

tencies between its predictions and the observed spectral slopes during the

prompt emission [35]. Alternative models for the emission in internal shocks

include synchrotron self-Compton [36, 37] and inverse Compton scattering of

external light [38] similarly to the emission mechanism for blazar jets.

In the next chapter, we will come back to these emission mechanisms in

conjunction of the high-energy emission observed by the Fermi Large Area

Telescope.

4the baryon loading is simply the amount of baryons in the jet.


Figure 1.13: Different possible broadband synchrotron spectra from a rela-tivistic blast wave that accelerates electrons to a power-law distribution ofenergies (Nγ9γp, with γ the Lorentz factor of the electrons). The breakfrequencies are shown by vertical dashed lines for different sets of physicalconditions corresponding to different orderings of the break frequencies: theminimal synchrotron frequency of the least energetic electron νm, the self-absorption frequency νsa, and the typical synchrotron frequency of an electronwhose cooling time equals the dynamical time of the system νc. The similarityof these spectra to the spectrum of the prompt emission from GRBs impliesthat the latter is most likely synchrotron radiation. Source: [28].

Chapter 2

High-energy γ-ray Emission

from GRBs

2.1 Introduction

Different energy ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum provide unique in-

formation regarding the environment and mechanism of GRBs. Afterglow

emission has been observed from radio to γ-rays while the prompt emission

was mostly observed in the γ-ray sub-MeV regime with very scarce observation

in the E ¡ 20 MeV band during the pre-Fermi era. GRBs are a candidate

source of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs). Acceleration of ele-

mentary particles to such high energies, inevitably, will produce extremely

energetic γ-rays up to TeV energies and beyond. This chapter will present the

physical processes involved in the generation and absorption of High-Energy1

(HE) photons in GRBs, and will provide insight into the emission region and

mechanisms.

Section 2.2 will present the status of HE observations of prompt and after-

glow emission from GRBs in the pre-Fermi era. Then, section 2.3 will give

an overview of the processes that can generate HE photons in GRBs. Lastly,

section 2.4 will describe the processes that can absorb part of that radiation

at the site of the burst.

1I will hereby use the word High-Energy as meaning emission above 100 MeV

27

28 CHAPTER 2. HIGH-ENERGY γ-RAY EMISSION FROM GRBS

2.2 Pre-Fermi observations of HE Emission from

GRBs

Before the advent of the Fermi mission, constraints on the origin of the high-

energy emission from GRBs were quite limited due to both the small number

of bursts with firm high-energy detection and even in the case of detection,

the small number of γ-rays that were observed. High-energy emission from

GRBs was first observed by the Energetic Gamma-Ray Experiment Telescope

(EGRET, covering the energy range from 30 MeV to 30 GeV) onboard CGRO.

Emission above 100 MeV was detected in five cases by the EGRET spark

chamber: GRBs 910503, 910601, 930131, 940217 and 940301 [60]. One of

these sources, GRB 930131, had high-energy emission that was consistent with

an extrapolation from its spectrum obtained with BATSE between 25 keV –

4 MeV [61].

Evidence for an additional high-energy component up to 200 MeV with

a different temporal behavior to the low-energy component was discovered in

GRB 941017 [in EGRET’s calorimeter TASC; 62]. The high-energy emission

for this GRB lasted more than 200 seconds with a single spectral component

being ruled out. The extra-component appeared 10 20 s after the main

burst and had a roughly constant flux, while the lower-energy component

decayed by three orders of magnitude (see figure 2.2). The higher-energy

component also had a hard and rising spectral slope (index 1.0q. Some time

after the main burst ( 150 sq, it contained more energy than the lower-energy

peak (30 keV 2MeV ). And GRB 940217 showed high-energy emission which

lasted up to 90 minutes after the BATSE GRB trigger, including an 18 GeV

photon at 75 minutes post-trigger [63] (see figure 2.1).

More recently, the GRID instrument onboard Astro-rivelatore Gamma a

Immagini LEggero (AGILE) detected 10 high-energy events with energies up

to 300 MeV from GRB 080514B, in coincidence with its lower energy emis-

sion, with a significance of 3.0 σ [64]. The Fermi observatory is expected to

drastically improve GRB observations at high energy thanks to its main in-

strument, the Large Area Telescope which has unprecedented effective area,

energy resolution, time resolution and field-of-view in the 20 MeV to 300 GeV

2.2. PRE-FERMI OBSERVATIONS OF HE EMISSION FROM GRBS 29

Figure 2.1: Ulysses and EGRET observations of GRB 970217. Notice inparticular the 18GeV photon detected 90min by EGRET after the GRBonset. Source: [63]

energy range. A pre-launch analysis [105] estimated that the LAT would ap-

proximately detect 10 bursts per year with few of them having more than 100

photons detected allowing precise time-resolved spectroscopy of the prompt

emission to be performed (see 7.1 for a comparison with actual detection rate

after launch).

There is no conclusive detection at Very High Energies2 (VHE) as of Au-

gust 2010. The most sensitive ground-based detectors Imaging Atmospheric

Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) have a narrow field of view (À 3o), a small duty

cycles (less than 10%) and have slewing limitation to catch the prompt emis-

sion (MAGIC telescope which has a dedicated light structure for fast slewing

takes on order of a hundred seconds to be on target). Given these constraints,

a detection of prompt VHE emission with current IACTs is unlikely. Water

Cherenkov Telescopes, on the other hand have wide field of view ( 2 sr) and a

high duty cycle (¡ 90%q which allows observation of the GRB prompt emission

although their sensitivity is much lower than IATCs. Milagrito, the prototype

of Milagro, was used to search for γ-rays in coincidence with 56 BATSE GRBs

that were in its field of view. It detected an excess in coincidence in time and

in the error box of GRB 970417 with a post-trials probability of 1.5 103

(or 3σ) [65]. However, the statistical significance was not high enough for a

definitive detection to be claimed.

2I will hereby use the word Very High-Energy as meaning emission above 100 GeV


2.3 High-energy emission Processes

Various radiation mechanisms are capable of producing high energy photons in

GRBs. Leptons and hadrons are certainly present within the ultra-relativistic

plasma and may be responsible for the HE emission observed. Distinguishing

between a leptonic and a hadronic origin of the HE emission is a key issue

still awaiting to be resolved. Because the exact particle composition and the

plasma condition at the acceleration site of a burst are not very well known,

the expected emission due to the different processes is only moderately con-

strained. We will now review the leptonic (section 2.3.1) and hadronic (section

2.3.2) processes capable of producing HE emission in GRBs.

2.3.1 Leptonic emission

It is believed that the GRB jet converts its macroscopic kinetic energy into

non-thermal energy via internal and external shocks which accelerate electrons

to ultra-relativistic energies. These accelerated electrons can then dissipate

their energy via two processes. The first is synchrotron radiation, believed

to be responsible for the observed keV MeV and lower-energy emission from

GRBs. The second process is inverse Compton scattering, in which the ultra-

relativistic electrons upscatter low-energy photons to higher energies. The

energy of a photon that underwent inverse Compton scattering is [66]

Eic 2Γ

1 z

γ12e E

1

sγ

1 g, (2.1)

where Γ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the fireball; z is the redshift of the burst;

γ12e is the Lorentz factor of the electron that caused the inverse Compton

scattering; E1

sγ is the initial energy of the seed photon that underwent Inverse

Compton scattering, and g γ1

eE1

sγmec2. The primed parameters refer to the

fireball frame of reference, and the non-primed parameters refer to the observer

frame of reference. In the Thomson limit (g ! 1q, equation 2.1 becomes

Eic,Thomson Γγ12e E

1

sγ. (2.2)

As can be seen, the upscattered energetic photons will have on average an

energy γ2e times higher than the target photons. If the energy of the seed

2.3. HIGH-ENERGY EMISSION PROCESSES 31

photons is high (g " 1) (for example, if they have already underwent one

inverse Compton scattering), then we are in the Klein-Nishina regime, and

the cross section of inverse Compton scattering becomes much lower than the

Thompson limit.

During internal shocks, the synchrotron photons generated by the electron

population can undergo inverse Compton scattering by that same electron

population. This process is called “Synchrotron Self-Compton” (SSC), with

“Self” referring to the electrons that both produce and upscatter the radiation.

The typical Lorentz factor of the internal shock electrons is γ2e 103 (in the

fireball’s rest frame). Therefore, a typical synchrotron photon of 300 keV

energy (from our reference frame) will be upscattered to an energy 106 times

higher, equal to a few hundred GeV . This process is believed to produce a

second GeV TeV peak at the GRB spectra, similar to the one observed in

blazar spectra. X-ray flare photons (E 10 keV q can also be upscattered to

GeV TeV energies whether X-ray emission is produced by the synchrotron

radiation of late internal shocks [67] or by shocks between slowly moving and

fast moving matter ejected simultaneously during the onset of the prompt

emission (refreshed shocks) [68].

Synchrotron emission and inverse Compton scattering both contribute to

cooling of the electrons. The cooling time through synchrotron emission is

tsyn 6πme cpσT B2 γeq, where στ is the Thomson cross section, and B is the

magnetic field. The cooling time through inverse Compton scattering can be

written as tIC tsynY , where Y is ’Compton Y parameter’, given by [69]

Y $&%

εeεB

, εeεB! 1b

εeεB

, εeεB" 1,

(2.3)

where εe and εB are the fractions of the shocked material’s energy carried

by electrons and the magnetic field, respectively. Depending on the rela-

tive magnitudes of εe and εB, cooling either through synchrotron emission

or through inverse Compton scattering dominates. Cooling through inverse

Compton scattering is only important for εe ¡ εB.

Pe’er and Waxman [70] calculated the leptonic emission from internal

shocks inside the GRB fireball. Their time-dependent numerical calculations


included all the relevant physical processes: synchrotron emission, synchrotron

self-compton, inverse Compton scattering, ee pair production and annihi-

lation, and the evolution of high-energy electromagnetic cascades. Figure 2.3

shows the effect of the ratio εeεB on the resulting spectral energy distribu-

tion. The first peak in the figure comes from synchrotron emission, and the

second higher-energy peak comes from inverse Compton scattering (SSC). As

can be seen, the higher εB is, the larger the amount of energy dissipated by

synchrotron emission. Note that we here consider a fireball relatively trans-

parent to HE energy photon. The effect of opacity of the emitting region will

be discussed in section 2.4

Inverse compton scattering operates whenever a population of accelerated

electrons encounters a photon radiation field. Models have therefore also be

put forward where the nature of these two population vary. Ultra-relativistic

electrons can be produced through internal or external shocks. For Inverse

Compton scattering, the radiation field, may come from the photospheric emis-

sion the jet emits at an early stage.

I now moves to hadronic processes that could produce high energy GRB

emission.

2.3.2 Hadronic emission

The protons of the GRB fireball are most likely accelerated to relativistic

energies (up to 1020 eV ?) and emit synchrotron radiation at high energies

[71, 72]. However, synchrotron emission from protons is weak, smaller by a

factor pmempq2 3 106 than the synchrotron emission by electrons.

In GRB internal and external shocks, various hadronic processes can create

neutral pions that later decay to higher energy gamma rays. These processes

are:

p γ Ñ ∆ Ñ πo p,

pX Ñ pX π0

where X can be a neutron or a proton. The produced pions will be moving

relativistically along the rest of the fireball towards the observer. For that

2.4. INTERNAL-ABSORPTION PROCESSES 33

reason, the energy of the pions and their decay photons will be relativistically

boosted to higher energies by a factor of Γ, as observed by our reference frame.

Charged pions also produce higher energy photons via synchrotron emission

of their decay electrons [73, 66]. These pions are produced by processes such

as

pX Ñ X n π,

p γ Ñ ∆ Ñ π n,

and decay through

π Ñ µ νµ Ñ e νe νµ νµ

π Ñ µ νµ Ñ e νe νµ νµ.

The energetic decay electrons and positrons emit synchrotron radiation at high

energies [66]. However, the energy radiated by this process is expected to be

smaller by orders of magnitude than the synchrotron component by primary

electrons, unless they are not efficiently accelerated or have lost their energy

by synchrotron or inverse Compton cooling [73, 66].

2.4 Internal-Absorption Processes

High-energy γ-rays living within a high density fireball are expected to be at-

tenuated through various processes that contribute to the opacity of the GRB

fireball, such as Compton scattering and pair creation. The dominant pro-

cess is pair creation after the scattering of the high energy (E ¡¡ 1MeV qphotons with lower-energy photons of the fireball (γγ Ñ ee). In that pro-

cess, a photon with energy εγ can annihilate with another photon of energy

Á pmec2q22εγ, where me is the electron mass, creating an electron-positron

pair. It is likely that the opacity at the GRB site varies from burst to burst,

depending on the local conditions, making it difficult to predict.

The opacity of the emitting region depends on the radiation density. A

high radiation density provides an abundance of lower-energy target photons

with which the higher-energy photons can be absorbed. The radiation den-

sity is proportional to the luminosity of the emitting region, and inversely


proportional to its size. An estimate of the size of the emitting region is ob-

tained through the variability time scale of the prompt emission light curve.

Each spike in the prompt light curve is indicative of the thickness of one

internal shock. Therefore, there is a relationship between the spatial (∆R)

and temporal (∆t) width. If the fireball is moving towards us with a bulk

Lorentz factor Γ, then ∆R Γ c∆t, with ∆R measured in the burst frame.

Using ∆R and the photon luminosity produced from the shock L, the “co-

moving compactness” parameter l1 can be calculated as l1 ∆Rn1

γ σT , where

n1

γ εeLp4πme c3 Γ2 r2

i q is the comoving number density of photons with an

energy Eph that exceeds the electron’s rest mass Eph ¥ me c2; εe is the fraction

of the post-shock thermal energy carried by the electrons; ri 2 Γ2 c∆T is

the radial distance of the shock from the center of the system; and σT is the

Thomson cross section [70]. The compactness parameter gives a measure of

the opacity of the prompt emission region with high-compactness conditions

which will result in a suppressed HE emission. Figure. 2.4 [265] represents the

γ γ and e γ pair production and Compton scattering opacity as a function

of energy and bulk Lorentz factor Γ.

A direct measure of the bulk Lorentz factor could therefore be achieved

through a clear identification of a cut-off in the spectrum associated with this

internal absorption process. But a spectral cut-off has not been identified in

the preFermi era. Even if such cut-off had been observed, it remains a real

challenge to determine its origin. Internal absorption, roll-over in the emitting

particle energy distribution or external absorption such as interaction with

the extragalactic background light are all viable candidates to explain such

feature. However the observation of high energy γ-rays in the GRB emission

may be used to set a lower limit on the bulk Lorentz factor given a measure

(or upper limit) of the time variability of the burst and and estimation of the

spectral behavior during the prompt emission. Such technique was applied

by [40] on a few BATSE bursts although assumptions on the redshift and/or

the highest photon from the source had to be made which were not justified.

In section 7.4.2, we will describe the reliable constraints that the Fermi data

allows us to set on the bulk Lorentz factor of a few jet observed by the LAT

instrument which had a follow-up redshift measurement.


Figure 2.2: Combined spectrum of GRB 941017 measured by BATSE andEGRET at different times relative to the BATSE trigger, a (18, 14 s), b(14, 47 s), c (47, 80 s), d (80, 113 s), and e (113, 211 s). An additional compo-nent is clearly observed at high energy and stays roughly constant with a hardindex ( 1) while the sub-MeV emission is decreasing. Source: [62]


Figure 2.3: Predictions for synchrotron and synchrotron self-compton radia-tion produced at internal shocks for different fractions of the jet’s energy car-ried by the magnetic field εB: black εB 0.33, red εB 102, blue εB 104.Here Γ 600, εe 0.316, ∆t 103, l1 0.8, and the GRB has a redshiftz 1. The calculation is for a low-opacity fireball. The higher εB is, thesmaller the fraction of the electrons’ energy dissipated through inverse Comp-ton scattering. The fraction of energy emitted at high energy (as opposedto the well-known sub-MeV behavior) is therefore heavily dependent on theamount of energy deposited into the electrons (εe) compare to the amount ofenergy in the magnetic field (εB) if the scenario of leptonic emission. Source:[70]


Figure 2.4: Opacities of high energy photons in the GRB internal shocksfor various processes with the dominant γ γ pair production process whichmake the fireball optically thick for specific bulk Lorentz factor and energyregime. Photons below the e pair production threshold, in the comovingframe, escape freely both below 10-100 GeV and above 10 PeV. When otherparameters are fixed, the opacity decreases with increasing Γ ( 316, 500, 800for solid, dotted and dashed curves respectively). The GRB fireball becomescompletely optically thin to photons of all energy for a very high bulk Lorentzfactor (Γ ¡¡ 1000). [265]

Chapter 3

EBL absorption of the γ-ray

emission from GRBs and AGNs

Density and spectrum of the Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) in the

early Universe carry important aspects of the evolution of matter: star forma-

tion history, absorption and re-emission of light by dust, chemical evolution,

galaxy formation... Unfortunately its direct measurement is hindered by the

much stronger foreground zodiacal and Galactic light. Bright γ-ray emitters

observed up to large cosmological distances can be used to derive indirect in-

formation on the integrated flux of Extragalctic Background Light between the

source and the solar system. Gamma-Ray Bursts along with Active Galactic

Nuclei (AGNs), blazars in particular, satisfy this condition as they are ex-

tremely luminous in the γ-ray band and have been detected up to very high

redshifts (GRBs: z 8.2; AGNs: z 5.4). Indirect clue of what column

density of infrared, optical and ultraviolet EBL can be obtained since very

high-energy (typically above 10 GeV) γ-rays interact with these lower energy

photons via pair production. As a consequence γ-ray emission is absorbed dur-

ing its propagation throughout extragalactic space until it reaches the Earth.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the different models of the EBL,

and the effects of EBL absorption on the high-energy emission from γ-ray

emitters. Section 3.1 provides a general description of the EBL. Section 3.2

gives an overview of the currently available models and how they compare with

the observational constraints. Finally, section 3.3 presents the effects of EBL

absorption on the high-energy emission from GRBs and blazars.

38

3.1. THE IR-OPTICAL-UV EBL 39

3.1 The IR-optical-UV EBL

Energetic γ-ray photons are subject to absorption by production of electron-

positron (ee) pairs while interacting with low energy cosmic background

photons [74, 75, 76] if above the interaction threshold:

εthr p2mec2q2p2Ep1 µqq (3.1)

where ε and E denote the energies of the background photon and γ ray,

respectively, in the comoving frame of the interaction, mec2 is the rest mass

electron energy, and µ cospθq where θ is the interaction angle between

the two photons. Because of the sharply peaked cross section close to the

threshold, most interactions are centered around ε 0.8pETeVq1eV for a

smooth broadband spectrum. Thus, the extragalactic background light (EBL)

at UV through infrared wavelengths constitutes the main source of opacity for

γ-rays from extragalactic sources (Active Galactic Nuclei: AGN and GRBs).

The effect of absorption of HE γ-rays is then reflected in an energy- and

redshift dependent softening of the observed spectrum from a distant γ-ray

source. The observation, or absence, of such spectral features at HEs, for a

source at redshift z can be used to constrain the γγ Ñ ee pair production

opacity, τγγpE, zq.

The EBL is the accumulated radiation from structure formation and its

cosmological evolution. Figure 3.1 shows radiation background at different

energy. As one can see, the infrared-optical-UV background light is the second

most intense source of radiation background after the Cosmic Microwave Back-

ground (CMB). Knowledge of its intensity variation with time would probe

models of galaxy and star formation. The intensity of the EBL from the near-

IR to ultraviolet is thought to be dominated by direct starlight emission out

to large redshifts, and to a lesser extent by optically bright AGN. At longer

wavelengths the infrared background is produced by thermal radiation from

dust which is heated by starlight, and also emission from polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons [see e.g. 77].

40CHAPTER 3. EBL ABSORPTION OF THE γ-RAY EMISSION FROMGRBS ANDAGNS

Figure 3.1: Schematic background radiation spectrum as a function of wave-length. The optical-infrared-UV EBL consists of two kinds of light: redshiftedstarlight at near infrared-optical-UV (and optically bright AGN to a lesserextent) and starlight absorbed and remitted by dust in the infrared. Theinfrared to UV background light is the second most intense source of radi-ation background after the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Source:Wikipedia

3.2 EBL Models

Direct measurements of the EBL is difficult due to contamination by fore-

ground zodiacal and Galactic light [e.g., 78], and galaxy counts result in a

lower limit since the number of unresolved sources is unknown [e.g., 79] and

direct measurements can set loose upper limits. However, the density of the

EBL at different redshifts cannot be constrained by measuring the cumulative

energy output only. For that reason, there are multiple models that try to

calculate the density of the EBL at various redshifts and wavelengths. These

models approach the problem with different methods, degrees of complexity,

observational constraints and, inputs1:

• The backward-evolution models [102, 103] extrapolate present-day data

1The following information on the various models was mostly based on the detailedoverviews in [78, 101].

3.2. EBL MODELS 41

or template spectra of local galaxies to higher redshifts. They are simple

and easily verifiable since they predict quantities that can be compared

with observations. However, they do not include known processes oc-

curring in galaxies such as star formation, and re-emission of radiated

power by dust.

• The forward-evolution models predict the temporal evolution of galaxies

as a function of time, starting at the onset of star formation. In gen-

eral, they have been proven successful in fitting the spectra of individual

galaxies, galaxy number counts in specific bands, and the general char-

acteristics of the EBL. However, they do not include galaxy interactions

and stochastic changes in the star formation rate.

• The semi-analytical models [84] adopt the approach of the forward-

evolution models, but they also rely on simulations of structure forma-

tion. This way, they can make predictions about the observable charac-

teristics of galaxies and the intensity and spectrum of the EBL. These

models take into account multiple physical processes, such as the cool-

ing of gas that falls in the halos, the star formation, and the feedback

mechanisms that modulate the star formation efficiency. In spite of their

general successes, there remain some discrepancies between their predic-

tions and observations. The origins of these discrepancies are difficult to

trace because of the inherent complexity of the models and the multitude

of parameters needed by them.

• The EBL provides an integrated over-time view of the energy release by

a wide variety of physical processes and systems that have populated the

universe. So, it is expected to be dependent mostly on the global char-

acteristics of cosmic history. Thus, chemical-evolution models deal with

the history of a few of the globally-averaged properties of the universe

instead of trying to model the complex processes that determine galaxy

formation, evolution, and emission. The main advantages of these mod-

els are their global nature, their intrinsic simplicity, and the fact that

they do not require detailed knowledge of specific processes involved in

the evolution of galaxies. They provide a picture of the evolution of the


mean number density of stars, interstellar gas, metals, and radiation av-

eraged over the entire population of galaxies. They have been successful

in reproducing the generic spectral shape of the EBL, but they fall short

of some UV-optical and near-infrared measurements.

In general, most models predict similar cosmic infrared background spectra

from 51000µm, mostly because they use similar cosmic star formation his-

tories. Backward evolution models assume a rising SFR up to z 11.5 with

a nearly constant rate at earlier times. Forward-evolution and semi-analytical

models try to reproduce the same SFR in order to fit number counts or co-

moving spectral luminosity densities at different redshifts. Larger differences

are in the predictions regarding the UV-optical spectral range of the EBL.

Backward-evolution models do not include the physical processes that link the

cosmic infrared background and the UV-optical part of the spectrum. Some

of them try to amend this by incorporating template spectra. Other models,

naturally arrive at a doubly-peaked EBL because they explicitly include the

absorption of starlight and the following re-emission by dust.

A number of EBL models have been developed over the last two decades [e.g.,

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 169, 88]. However large scatter in available EBL

data does not constrain these models strongly.

Primack et al. [84], use a semi-analytical model, which in general predicts

lower optical depths for nearby sources z À 2 than the other models. Stecker

et al. [102, 103] use a backward evolution model that has been frequently

updated using new data. Their model predicts a large UV photon density and

consequently a higher gamma-ray opacity at high redshifts. Kneiske et al. [83]

use a chemical-evolution model for the UV-optical part of the EBL and, based

on recent deep galaxy surveys, a backwards-evolution for the infrared part.

Figure 3.2 shows various observational measurements and lower/upper lim-

its from various experiments. Minimum and maximum shape of the EBL spec-

trum that stays in reasonable agreement with the observational constraints are

also plotted. One can notice that the predictions differ significantly, sometimes

by more than a factor five. Further observational constraints are therefore nec-

essary in order to get a better handle on the total EBL content in the universe.

3.3. CONSTRAINTS ON THE EBL VIA γ-RAY OBSERVATIONS 43

Figure 3.2: EBL measurements and lower/upper limits (gray symbols) fromvarious experiments. Solid curves represent minimum and maximum shapefor the EBL spectrum which is reasonable given the observational constraints[267]. This illustrates the huge uncertainty in estimating the EBL content ofthe Universe. Source: [266]

3.3 Constraints on the EBL via γ-ray obser-

vations

Let us first describe the effects of the EBL absorption on the γ-ray spectra

from distant sources. Figure 3.3 shows the attenuation factors (eτpE,zqq ver-

sus photon energy and GRB redshift for different EBL models. As can be

seen, Primack’s 2004 model predicts less absorption, while the Stecker models

predict more. Also, the attenuation is positively correlated with the redshift

of the source and the photon energy.

The primary extragalactic γ-ray point sources are considered to be blazars,

which are galaxies with relativistic jets directed along our line of sight; and

GRBs. GRBs have not been used to contrain EBL absorption during the pre-

Fermi era mainly because of a lack of sensitivity to transient objects above

10 GeV as well as the absence systematic redshift measurement during the

EGRET era. The sensitivity of EGRET decreased significantly above 10 GeV,

and the field-of-view of TeV instruments is too small to catch the prompt phase


Figure 3.3: Attenuation as a function of observed gamma-ray energy for theEBL models of [211] and [255]. These models predict the minimum and max-imum absorption of all models in the literature, and thus illustrate the rangeof optical depths predicted at very high energy.

where most of the HE emission occurs.

Because the e-folding cutoff energy, Epτγγ 1q, from γγ pair production in

γ-ray source spectra decreases with redshift, TeV γ-ray telescopes are limited

to probing EBL absorption at low redshift due to their high detection thresh-

olds (typically at 100 GeV). Ground-based γ-ray telescopes have detected 35

extragalactic sources to date2, mostly of the high-synchrotron peaked (HSP)

BL Lacertae objects type. The most distant sources seen from the ground

with a confirmed redshift are the flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ) 3C 279

at z 0.536 [89] and PKS 1510-089 at z 0.36 [90]. Observations of the

closest sources at multi-TeV energies have been effective in placing limits on

the local EBL at mid-IR wavelengths, while spectra of more distant sources

generally do not extend above 1 TeV, and therefore probe the optical and

near-IR starlight peak of the intervening EBL.

The starting point for constraining the EBL intensity from observation of

TeV γ-rays from distant blazars with atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes [e.g.,

91, 92, 93, 94, 267, 89, 96] is the assumption of a reasonable intrinsic blazar

spectrum, which, in the case of a power law, dNdE9EΓint for example, that

is not harder than a pre-specified minimum value, e.g., Γint ¥ Γmin 0.67 or

2e.g., http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/sources/,http://www.mppmu.mpg.de/ rwagner/sources/

3.3. CONSTRAINTS ON THE EBL VIA γ-RAY OBSERVATIONS 45

1.5. Upper limits on the EBL intensity are obtained when the reconstructed

intrinsic spectral index from the observed spectrum, Γobs, presumably soft-

ened by EBL absorption of VHE γ-rays, is required to not fall below Γint.

The minimum value of Γ has been a matter of much debate, being reasoned

to be Γint 1.5 by [94] from simple shock acceleration theory and from the

observed spectral energy distribution (SED) properties of blazars, while [97]

argued for harder values under specific conditions based based on more de-

tailed shock acceleration simulations. It was suggested that a spectral index

as hard as Γint 0.67 was possible in a single-zone leptonic model if the

underlying electron spectrum responsible for inverse-Compton emission had a

sharp lower-energy cutoff [98]. Finally we note that Compton scattering of the

cosmic microwave background radiation by extended jets could lead to harder

observed VHE γ-ray spectra [99], and that internal absorption could, in some

cases, lead to harder spectra in the TeV range as well [100].

Chapter 4

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space

Telescope

The Fermi observatory continuously observes the entire celestial sphere in the

gamma-ray band, with unprecedented sensitivity and improved angular reso-

lution. Covering the 20 MeV to ¥ 300 GeV energy range, its main instrument,

the Large Area Telescope (LAT)1, has a large detecting area, an imaging ca-

pability over a large FOV, and the time resolution and low deadtime sufficient

to study transient phenomena. The LAT also provides active background dis-

crimination and rejection against the large fluxes of cosmic rays, and Earth

albedo gamma rays. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) onboard

Fermi provides spectral and temporal observations in the 10 keV to 40 MeV

energy band, detects and localizes transient objects (GRBs as well as other

transient emissions such as Soft-Gamma ray Repeaters, Terrestrial Gamma-

ray Flashes...), and alerts the observatory control unit of a GRB trigger for a

more refined search in the LAT instrument. Fermi can autonomously repoint

to its observing plan to observe strong GRBs during and after the low-energy

gamma-ray emission, and provides rapid notification to the science community.

The next sections will describe the instruments in greater detail.

The primary data downlink and uplink path between the spacecraft and the

ground is through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS).2

Science and housekeeping data are downlinked at Ku-band frequencies 1011 times per day at 40 Mbps during seven to eight minute real time telemetry

1we refer the reader to [197] for a detailed description of the instrument.2See http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/tdrss.html

46

4.1. MISSION TIMELINE 47

contacts. During these downlinks there is a direct 4 kbps uplink rate available

at S-band frequencies. The time between these downlinks, the transmission

time through TDRSS and the processing at the LAT Instrument Science and

Operations Center (LISOC) result in a latency of 6 12 hours between an

observation and the availability of the resulting LAT data for astrophysical

analysis. Burst alerts and spacecraft alarms can be downlinked in the S-

band (variable data rates) at all times. When GBM or LAT software triggers,

messages are sent to the ground through TDRSS with a 15 s latency. S-band

uplink and downlink (no science data) directly to ground stations is possible as

a backup to TDRSS. Time and spacecraft position are provided by an onboard

GPS system.

4.1 Mission timeline

Fermi was launched in June 11th, 2008, from Cape Canaveral by a Delta

2920H-10 (also known as a Delta II ’Heavy’) into an initial orbit of 565 km

altitude at a 25.6 degree inclination with an eccentricity 0.01. The orbital

period is 96.5 minutes, and has a precession period of 53.4 days (so the RA

and Dec of the orbit poles trace a 25.6 degree circle on the sky every 53.4

days). The mission design lifetime is a minimum of 5 years, with a goal of 10

years.

After launch the mission consists of three phases: a 2 month on-orbit

initial checkout (Phase 0), a one year science verification period during which

a full sky survey will be performed (Phase 1), and then at least four years

of operations determined by the scientific goals and requirements of guest

investigations (Phase 2). There is one cycle of guest investigations during the

verification and sky survey phase, and annual guest investigation cycles during

Phase 2. The GBM data were publicly released during Phase 1 while the LAT

data were released only in Phase 2, i.e., about 14 months after Fermis launch.

4.2 Observing Modes

The LAT and GBM have very wide FOVs, and the observatory is very flexible

in the direction in which it can point. An observational constraint is to avoid

48 CHAPTER 4. THE FERMI GAMMA-RAY SPACE TELESCOPE

pointing at or near the Earth to maximize the detection of astrophysical pho-

tons. The Earth’s limb is indeed a very strong source of albedo gamma-rays

which the LAT may occasionally observe for instrument calibration. Orienta-

tion requirements for the LAT’s cooling radiators, the battery radiators, and

the observatory solar panels also impose engineering constraints, particularly

during slewing maneuvers. No science data is taken while the observatory is

transiting the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) since the instruments lower the

voltage on their photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). The SAA is a region over the

South Atlantic with a high density of charged particles that are trapped by the

configuration of the Earth’s magnetic field. In a 25.6 degree inclination orbit

and at Fermi’s altitude, SAA outages cost 15% of the LAT’s and GBMs

potential observing time.

The Fermi spacecraft operates in a number of observing modes. Transi-

tions between modes may be commanded from the ground or by the spacecraft.

Based on data from the GBM, an autonomous repoint request can be sent to

the spacecraft in order to change the observing mode to monitor the location

of a GRB (or other short timescale transient) in or near the LAT’s FOV. This

mode keeps the earth out of the FOV; the default Earth Avoidance Angle

(defined as the minimum angle between the LAT axis and the Earth’s limb)

is 30 degrees. When the target is unocculted but within the Earth Avoidance

Angle of the Earth’s limb, the spacecraft will keep the target in the LAT’s

FOV while keeping the Earth out of the LAT’s FOV. The observatory may

observe a secondary target when the Earth occults the primary target. After

a pre-determined time the spacecraft will return to the scheduled mode. Cur-

rently the dwell time for such autonomous repoints is five hours. The pointing

accuracy is ¤ 2 degrees (1σ goal of ¤ 0.5 degrees), with a pointing knowledge

of ¤ 10 arcsec (goal ¤ 5 arcsec).

In survey mode, which predominate during most of the mission (e.g., ¡ 80%

of the observing time), the LAT’s pointing is relative to the zenith (the direc-

tion away from the Earth), and therefore changes constantly relative to the

sky. Uniformity of exposure is achieved by ”rocking” the pointing perpendic-

ular to the orbital motion. The default profile during the first year of the

mission rocked the instrument axis 35 degrees north for one orbit, then 35

degrees south for one orbit, resulting in a two-orbit periodicity. In order to

4.3. THE LARGE AREA TELESCOPE (LAT) 49

optimize the uniformity of sky coverage, the rocking profile was changed in

September 2nd 2009 to a 50 degree rocking angle. The maximum rocking an-

gle (in case of sun maneuver for example) is set to 60 degrees. This observing

mode provides uniform sky coverage when averaged over 2 orbits ( 3 hours)

with the equivalent of 30 minutes of on axis exposure for each part of the sky.

In the next 2 sections, we will describe the main characteristics of the LAT

and GBM detectors which are relevant to GRB observations. The LAT is

described in greater depth in [197] and the GBM in [118].

4.3 The Large Area Telescope (LAT)

4.3.1 Instrument capabilities

The LAT’s principal objective is high sensitivity gamma-ray observations of

celestial sources in the energy range from 20 MeV to ¥ 300 GeV. Table

4.1 lists the main characteristics of the LAT instruments: wide FOV, large

effective area, good energy resolution and good angular resolution.

Characteristics CapabilityEnergy Range 20 MeV to ¥ 300 GeVEnergy Resolution 10% below 100 MeV, 5% around 1 GeV and 20%

above 10 GeVEffective Area ¥ 8, 000 cm2 (¥ 9, 000 cm2) maximum effective area

at normal incidence for the diffuse (transient) class.See figure 4.5

Single Photon An-gular Resolution

¤ 0.15, on-axis, 68% space angle containment radiusfor E ¥ 10 GeV; ¤ 3.5, on-axis, 68% space anglecontainment radius for E=100 MeV

Field of View 3 strTime Accuracy ¤ 10µs, relative to spacecraft timeDead Time ¤ 100µs per trigger

Table 4.1: LAT instrument characteristics

Key points of the LAT design for GRB observations are:

• Wide Field-Of-View: 3 str if the LAT FoV is defined as the direc-

tion where the effective area is at least one-third of the peak effective

area.With this definition, 25% of the sky is observable at all time (with

variation of the effective area over the FoV)


Figure 4.1: Photon conversion in the LAT

• Large effective area: improved sensitivity to faint bursts and possibility

for time resolved spectral analysis of the bright bursts

• Good energy resolution: improved spectral analysis compared to EGRET

• Point Spread Function: good GRB localization especially for hard bursts;

we estimate that two or three photons above 1 GeV will localize a bursts

to 5 arcminutes

• Short dead time: study of the sub-structure of the GRB pulses; typi-

cally of the order of milliseconds (compared to Á 100 ms dead time for

EGRET)

4.3.2 Detection methodology

The LAT is a ’pair conversion’ γ-ray detector. Figure 4.1 gives a schematic

of the pair conversion process in the LAT instrument. Gamma rays penetrate

into the detector and interact with a high Z converter material, in this case

tungsten, to produce an electron-positron pair. Since the gamma-ray energy

is much larger than the rest mass of the electron and positron, both members

of the pair continue predominantly in the direction of the incident gamma

ray. The passage of the electron and positron through the detector is tracked

by components that are sensitive to the passage of charged particles, in this


case of the LAT silicon strip detectors. At the bottom of the detector is a

calorimeter array made of CsI(Tl) logs where electromagnetic showers develop

and that aims at recording the total energy deposited and therefore allowing

a good estimation of the energy of the particle.

Charged particles incident on the LAT also interact in the LAT, resulting

in multiple charged particle tracks. To veto these charged particles, which

are ‘background’ for an astrophysical telescope, the LAT is surrounded by an

anticoincidence detector (ACD), plastic scintillation tiles that scintillate when

traversed by a charged particle. Very high energy gamma rays (E ¡¡ 1 GeV)

produces thousands of electrons, positrons and γ-rays some of which exit

the LAT through the ACD (‘backsplash’); the EGRET detector on CGRO

had a monolithic ACD that vetoed the instrument whenever such eeγhit the ACD. The LAT ACD is segmented, and only when such a backsplash

hits an ACD tile on the path of the incoming γ-ray is the event vetoed. The

segmentation also results in a more uniform anti-coincidence threshold over the

ACD. This segmentation of the LAT ACD increases the LAT’s effective area for

high-energy gamma rays dramatically relative to EGRET (whose sensitivity

went down past a few GeV).

The output from the LAT consists of the pulse-height signals produced as

charged particles deposit energy in different parts of the tracker and calorime-

ter. By combining the pulse heights with the x-y coordinates of each pair

of silicon strip detectors, one can reconstruct the particle trajectory and en-

ergy losses. The analysis both onboard and on the ground reconstructs the

tracks of the charged particles from these data, and then characterizes the

interaction that produced the charged particles; this analysis can distinguish

between events resulting from photons and background, determine the incident

direction and estimate the energy.

4.3.3 Detector Structure

The LAT consists of an array of 16 tracker (TKR) modules, 16 calorimeter

(CAL) modules, and a segmented ACD. The TKR and CAL modules are

mounted to the instrument grid structure. Figure 4.2 shows a schematic of

the different part of the LAT instrument.

Each TKR module consists of 18 pairs of X and Y planes. Each XY pair has


Figure 4.2: View of the Fermi LAT instrument with the Anti-CoincidenceDetector (yellow) ”opened” and the tracker and calorimeter part of one towerseparated for more clarity.

an array of silicon-strip detectors (SSDs) for charged particle detection. The

SSDs in each plane actually consist of two planes of silicon strips, one running

in the x and the other in the y direction, thereby localizing the passage of a

charged particle. The first 12 planes have 0.035 radiation length thick tungsten

plates in front of the SSD pairs, the next 4 planes have 0.18 radiation length

thick tungsten plate, and the last 2 planes, immediately in front of the CAL,

do not have tungsten plates. A radiation length is defined as the length in a

specific material in which an energetic electron loses 1 e1 of its energy by

bremsstrahlung.

Gamma rays incident from within the LAT’s FOV either convert into an

electron-positron pair in one of the TKR’s tungsten plates or Compton scatter

on an electron in the TKR. The initial directions of the electron and positron

are determined from their tracks recorded by the SSD planes following the

conversion point. Multiple scattering in the first few tungsten layers results

in an angular deflection that is a fundamental limit to the low energy angular

resolution. Although less frequent, bremsstrahlung by ee just converted

in the TKR can offset the incident γ-ray direction. Cosmic rays also interact

within the TKR modules. Reconstruction of the interactions from the tracks

identify the type of particle as well as its energy and incident direction.

Each CAL module consists of 8 planes (4 X planes and 4 Y planes) of 12


CsI(Tl) crystals each. The crystals are read out by two PIN diodes at each

end. The CAL’s segmentation and read-out provide precise three-dimensional

localization of the particle shower in the CAL. At normal incidence the CAL’s

depth is 8.5 radiation lengths. The CAL is a total absorption calorimeter with

excellent energy resolution.

The ACD is composed of plastic scintillator segmented into tiles, and sup-

plemented with fiber ribbons, and the plastic scintillators are read out by

waveshifting fibers connected to one PMT at each end.

4.3.4 Onboard and Ground Processing

The LAT’s Data Acquisition System (DAQ) performs preliminary cuts on

events within the LAT, to reduce the rate of background events that is teleme-

tered to the ground. The DAQ processes the captured event data into a data

stream with an average bit rate of 1.2 Mbps for the LAT. The DAQ also

performs: command, control, and instrument monitoring; housekeeping; and

power switching. Onboard processing can be modified by uploading new soft-

ware, if necessary.

The astrophysical photons of primary interest are a tiny fraction of the

particles that penetrate into the LAT’s TKR. The LAT performs on-board

analysis cuts that reduces the 2.5 kHz event rate that trigger the TKR to

400 Hz event rate that is sent to the ground for further analysis; of these

400 Hz only 25 Hz are astrophysical photons. The data for an event that

passes the on-board analysis cuts is stored in a packet with a time stamp and

details of the signals from the various LAT components. Because the number

of signals for a given event varies, the data packets have variable length. These

data packets describing each event are the LAT’s primary data product. The

LAT transfers these packets to the spacecraft’s solid state recorder (SSR) for

subsequent transmission to the ground.

The onboard flight software also performs event reconstructions for a burst

trigger. Because of the available computer resources, the onboard event selec-

tion is not as discriminating as the on-ground event selection, and therefore the

onboard burst trigger is not as sensitive because the astrophysical photons are

diluted by a larger background flux. Similarly, larger localization uncertainties

result from the larger onboard PSF. Comparison of onboard and on-ground


Figure 4.3: Comparison of the LAT onboard (dashed) and onground ’transient’class (solid) effective areas and point-spread-functions

transient effective area and PSF can be seen in figure 4.3

The data telemetered down from Fermi enters the Fermi ground system

through the Mission Operations Center (MOC) housed at GSFC. The MOC

’cleans up’ the telemetry, monitors the spacecraft through the housekeeping

portion of the telemetry. The resulting product, called Level 0 data, is trans-

mitted to the other ground system elements. The MOC also sends commands

to the spacecraft, particularly a weekly load of observing and operational com-

mands.

Each instrument team maintains an Instrument Operations Center (IOC).

The LAT Instrument Science and Operations Center (LISOC) is located at

SLAC in Palo Alto, CA. The IOC receive the ’cleaned up’ telemetry, monitor

their detectors through the housekeeping portion of the telemetry, process the

science data, and transmit the resulting science data products to the FSSC.

The LAT science data processing is quite extensive, starting with event re-

construction from the ’hits’ in different parts of the LAT and ending with a

characterization of these events. The data that leaves is called Level 1 data.

The data telemetered to the ground consists of the signals from different

parts of the LAT; from these signals the ground software must ‘reconstruct’

the events and filter out events that are unlikely to be gamma-rays. Therefore,

the Instrument Response Functions (IRFs) depend not only on the hardware

but also on the reconstruction and event selection software. For the same

set of reconstructed events trade-offs in the event selection between retaining

gamma rays and rejecting background result in different event classes. The


Figure 4.4: Effective Area: the plot on the left is for normal incidence photons(defined here as cospθq ¡ 0.975); the one on the right is for 10 GeV photonsas a function of incidence angle. Blue and red curves represent the back andfront effective area while black curve is the total instrument effective area(back+front).

original three standard event classes released to the scientific community are

appropriate for different scientific analyses (as their names suggest): the tran-

sient, source and diffuse event classes. Figure 4.5 shows the effective area and

PSF of the diffuse event class. Less severe cuts increase the photon signal

(and hence the effective area) at the expense of an increase in the non-photon

background and a degradation of the PSF and the energy resolution. A sig-

nificant part of my thesis was devoted to the optimization of event class for

transient sources as will be described in details in chapter 5.

In addition to the search for GRB onboard the LAT and manual follow-

up analysis by duty scientists, there is also automated processing of the full

science data. This processing performs an independent search for transient

events in the LAT data, to greater sensitivity than is possible onboard, and

also performs a counterpart search for all GRB detected within the LAT FoV.

4.3.5 The LAT Collaboration

The Fermi LAT collaboration includes scientists from Stanford University, in-

cluding SLAC/KIPAC (PI: Prof. P. Michelson); GSFC (Project Scientist: J.

McEnery); University of California at Santa Cruz; Naval Research Labora-

tory; University of Washington; Sonoma State University; Ohio State Univer-

sity; University of Denver; Perdue University Calumet. in the United States;


Figure 4.5: Point-spread-function of the diffuse class at incidence angle (solid)and 60 off-axis (dashed).

Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden; Commis-

sariat a l’Energie Atomique, Departement d’Astrophysique, Saclay; Institut

National de Physique Nuclearie et de Physique des Particules; and Centre

dEtude Spatiale des Rayonnements in France; Instituto Nazionale di Fisica

Nucleare; Agenzia Spaziale Italiana; Instituto di Fisica Cosmica, CNR; and

Universita e Politecnico di Bari in Italy; Hiroshima University; Institute of

Space and Astronautical Science; and the Tokyo Institute of Technology, the

University of Tokyo and Waseda University in Japan; and Institut de Cien-

cies de lEspai in Sapin. In addition, 29 institutions world-wide host Affiliated

Scientists.

4.4 Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM)

The Fermi GBM3 provides simultaneous low-energy spectral and temporal

measurements for all GRBs within the LAT FOV. The combined GBM and

LAT effective energy range spans more than 7 energy decades from 10 keV to

300 GeV. The GBM extends the energy coverage from below the typical GRB

spectral break at 100 keV to above the LAT’s low-energy cutoff. However

3see [118] for a detailed description of the instrument.

4.4. FERMI GAMMA-RAY BURST MONITOR (GBM) 57

we will see that the LAT data at low-energy are currently difficult to use for

spectral analysis making inter-calibration of the two instruments difficult at

the moment. Furthermore, the GBM’s sensitivity and FOV commensurate

with the LAT’s to ensure that many bursts will have simultaneous low-energy

and high-energy measurements with statistical significance. The GBM also

assists the LAT in detecting and localizing GRBs rapidly by providing prompt

notification to the ground of a burst trigger. Finally, the GBM provides coarse

GRB locations over a wide FOV that can be used to repoint the LAT on

particularly interesting bursts (both inside and outside the LAT FOV) for

gamma-ray afterglow observations. These locations are also sent to the ground

with 15 sec delay to notify external follow-up observers.

Using detection criteria similar to those of CGRO’s Burst And Transient

Source Experiment (BATSE), the GBM burst detection rate is reaching 250

bursts per year, well above the pre-launch. This improvement is mostly due

to an increase in the number of time windows that are searched.... blablabla

In addition to measuring low-energy spectra below the LAT threshold, the

GBM significantly improves the constraints on high-energy spectral behavior

compared to those of the LAT alone. The combination of GBM and LAT data

therefore provides a powerful tool to study GRB spectra and their underlying

physics.

4.4.1 Detector Capabilities

See table 4.2.

4.4.2 Hardware

To achieve the required GBM performance, the design and technology bor-

row heavily from previous GRB instruments, particularly from BATSE. Like

BATSE, the GBM uses two types of cylindrical crystal scintillation detectors,

whose light is read out by PMTs. An array of 12 sodium iodide (NaI) detectors

(0.5 in. thick, 5 in. diameter) covers the lower end of the energy range up to

1 MeV. The GBM triggers on signals in the NaI detectors. Each NaI de-

tector consists of the crystal, an aluminum housing, a thin beryllium entrance

window on the front face, and a 5 in. diameter PMT assembly (including a


Characteristics CapabilityLow Energy Limit 8 keVHigh Energy Limit 40 MeVEnergy Resolution (FWHM, 0.1-1 MeV) 12% at 511 keVField of View (co-aligned with LAT FOV) 9.5 srTime Accuracy (relative to spacecraft time) 2 microsecondsAverage Dead Time ¤ 2 microsecond/countBurst Sensitivity (peak 50-300 keV flux for 5σdetection in ph cm2.s1)

0.6 ph.cm.2.s1

Localization (1σ systematic error radius) ¤ 15 (onboard); ¤ 5

(on ground)Burst Alert Time Delay (time from burst triggerto spacecraft notification used to notify groundor LAT)

¤ 2 s

Table 4.2: GBM instrument characteristics

Figure 4.6: a view of the NaI (left) and BGO (right) detectors

4.4. FERMI GAMMA-RAY BURST MONITOR (GBM) 59

Figure 4.7: GBM detectors placements around the satellite

pre-amplifier) on the other. These detectors are distributed around the Fermi

spacecraft with different orientations to provide the required sensitivity, direc-

tionality and FOV. The cosine-like angular variation of the effective area of

the thin NaI detectors are used to localize burst sources by comparing rates

from detectors with different viewing angles. To cover higher energies, the

GBM also includes two 5 in. thick, 5 in. diameter bismuth germanate oxide

(BGO) detectors. The combination of the BGO detectors’ high-density (7.1 g

cm3) and large effective Z ( 63) results in good stopping power overlapping

with the low end of the LAT energy range at 20 MeV. Two BGO detectors

are placed on opposite sides of the Fermi spacecraft to provide high energy

spectral capability over approximately the same FOV as the NaI detectors.

For redundancy and improve energy resolution, each BGO detector has two

PMTs located at opposite ends of the crystal.

The signals from all 14 GBM detectors are collected by a central Data

Processing Unit (DPU). This unit digitizes and time-tags the detectors’ pulse

height signals, packages the resulting data into several different types for trans-

mission to the ground (via the Fermi observatory), and performs various data

processing tasks such as autonomous burst triggering. In addition, the DPU

is the sole means of controlling and monitoring the instrument. For example,

the DPU controls the PMTs’ power supply to maintain their gain.


4.4.3 Data Types

There are three basic types of GBM science data: (1) continuous data con-

sisting of the count rates from each detector in different energy and time

integration bins; (2) trigger data containing lists of individually time-tagged

pulse heights from selected detectors for periods before and after each on-

board trigger; and (3) Alert Telemetry sent down to the ground immediately

after a burst containing computed data from a burst trigger, such as inten-

sity, location, and classification. The Burst Alert, the first packet of the Alert

Telemetry calculated by the on-board algorithm, arrives at the Gamma-ray

burst Coordinates Network (GCN))4 within 15 seconds of the burst detection.

Alerts originating in the GBM are also sent to the LAT to aid in LAT GRB

detection and repointing decisions. The remaining data types are transmitted

via the scheduled Ku-band contacts. The GBM produces an average of 1.4

Gbits/day, with a minimum of 1.2 Gbits/day and a maximum allocated rate

of 2.2 Gbits/day.

4.4.4 The Fermi GBM Collaboration

The Fermi GBM collaboration includes scientists from the Marshall Space

Flight Center (PI: Dr. C. A. Meegan), the Max Planck Institute for Ex-

traterrestrial Physics (MPE; Co- PI: Dr. J. Greiner), the University of Al-

abama in Huntsville, the Universities Space Research Association (USRA),

and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Marshall, University of Alabama,

and USRA scientists are housed at the National Space Science and Technology

Center (NSSTC) in Huntsville.

4See http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Chapter 5

Optimization of event selection

for GRB science

The vast majority of instrument triggers and subsequently downlinked data

are background events caused by charged particles as well as earth albedo

γ-rays. The task of the hardware trigger is to reduce data volume the on-

line CPU can process while retaining most of the astronomical γ-ray events.

Subsequently the onboard filter eliminates background events further without

sacrificing celestial γ-ray events such that the resulting data can be transmit-

ted to the ground within the available bandwidth. These first two steps reduce

the event rate from 2 4 kHz to 400 Hz. The final task is for the analy-

sis on the ground to distinguish between background events and γ-ray events

and minimize the impact of backgrounds on γ-ray science. The combination

of these three elements (trigger, onboard filter and ground selection) reduces

the background by a factor of almost 106 while preserving efficiency for γ-rays

exceeding 75%. For reference, the average cosmic γ-ray event rate in the LAT

is 2 Hz.

As we will see in details below, the ground filtering algorithm defines several

event classes optimized for different science analyses. This chapter describes

the effort carried out to re-visit and further optimize the analysis of transient

sources such as Gamma-Ray Bursts. Section 5.1 introduces the various LAT

selection as defined before launch. Section 5.2 provides a general approach

to optimize event selection for specific science cases. Finally section 5.2.2

summarizes our method and findings concerning the optimization of the LAT

61

62CHAPTER 5. OPTIMIZATION OF EVENT SELECTION FORGRB SCIENCE

event classes for the analysis of transient sources.

5.1 Introduction to LAT event selections

The on-ground algorithm, from the low-level information of each event, not

only reconstructs the best direction and best energy for the event but also

estimates the accuracy of the direction and energy reconstruction as well as

the probability for the event to be a γ-ray (and not a cosmic-ray background).

These estimates are based on classification tree (CT) type analyses which

generate parameters representative of the accuracy of the direction and energy

measurement as well as the chance probability for the event to be a real γ-ray1.

These parameters can then be used as knobs by the various event selection to

optimize the event sample for different science objectives (analyses of diffuse

emission, point sources, transient objects...).

The background rejection is by far the most challenging of all the recon-

struction analysis tasks. This is due to the large phase space covered by the

LAT and the very low γ-ray to cosmic-ray ratio in the incoming data (1:300

for down-linked data). The first task is to eliminate the vast majority of the

charged particle flux that enters within the FoV using the ACD in conjunc-

tion with the found tracks. One cannot simply demand that there are no

signal from the ACD because high-energy γ-rays can generate a considerable

amount of back splash that can trigger several ACD tiles2. Consequently only

tiles which are not too distant from the reconstructed event direction are con-

sidered to establish a veto by the presence of a signal in excess of 14 that

of a minimum ionization event.

Rejecting cosmic-ray backgrounds involve the detailed topology of the

events within the tracker and the overall match of the shower profiles in 3D

in both the tracker and the calorimeter. The tracker provides a clear picture

of the early shower development. For example the identification of a 2-tracks

vertex immediately reduces the background contamination by about an order

1Classification trees sort events through different branches where a selection process istaking place at each node. By training classification trees on Monte-Carlo data, one canassign probabilities for different branches to select γ-rays as opposed to charged particlesand also determine the goodness of the direction and energy reconstruction on those events.

2Back splash is caused when the shower of a high-energy event produces hard X-ray thatscatter back into ACD tiles (usually the bottom tiles of the ACD).

5.1. INTRODUCTION TO LAT EVENT SELECTIONS 63

of magnitude. However a majority of events above 1 GeV do not contain such

a recognizable 2-tracks vertex due to the small opening angle of the ee pair

along the incoming γ-ray direction. The observation of a significant number

of extra hits in close proximity to the track(s) (i.e. consistent with electro-

magnetic shower development) indicates they are electrons and hence from the

conversion of a γ-ray while the presence of unassociated hits or tracks are a

strong indicator of background. These as well as other considerations are used

for training background rejection CTs.

The final discriminator of background is the identification of an electromag-

netic shower. Considerations such as how well the shower axis reconstructed

in the tracker points to the calorimeter centroid, how well the directional in-

formation from the calorimeter matches that of the track found in the tracker,

as well as the width and longitudinal shower profile in the various layers of the

calorimeter, are important in discriminating background. Again the informa-

tion from the reconstruction is used to train CTs and the resulting probabilities

are used to eliminate backgrounds.

The broad range of LAT observations and analysis, from GRBs to extended

diffuse radiation, leads to different optimizations of the event selections and

different rates of residual backgrounds. For example, in analysis of a GRB,

the extreme brightness of those objects in a relatively small region of the sky

(they are point sources) and in a very short time window allow the background

rejection cuts to be relaxed relative to an analysis of a diffuse source covering

a large portion of the sky. And thus, the background rejection analysis has

been constructed to allow analysis classes to be optimized for specific science

topics.

Basically three analysis classes have been defined based on Monte-Carlo,

the backgrounds in orbit, knowledge of the γ-ray sky, and the performance

of the LAT. Common to all of these analysis classes is the rejection of the

charged-particle backgrounds entering within the field of view. The classes

are differentiated by an increasingly tighter requirement that the candidate

photon events in both the tracker and the calorimeter behave as expected

for γ-ray induced electromagnetic showers. The loosest cuts apply to the so-

called ’transient’ class, for which the background rejection was set to allow a

background rate of À2 Hz, which would result in no more than one background


event every 5 sec inside a 10 radius about a source. Next, the ’source’ class

was designed so that the residual background contamination was similar to

that expected from the extragalactic γ-ray background flux over the entire

field of view. Finally, the ’diffuse’ class has the best background rejection at

the cost of a lower effective area and was designed such that harsher cuts would

not significantly improve the signal to noise. The diffuse cut has also the best

PSF which makes it optimal for studies of spatially extended structure (diffuse

emission, supernovae remnants...). Note that these three analysis classes are

hierarchical; that is all events in the ’diffuse’ class are contained in the ’source’

class and all events in the ’source’ class are in the ’transient’ class.

The above optimization was first done pre-launch using a background

model and Monte-Carlo and beam test data for the γ-ray instrument response

function. Once in orbit, it was possible to further optimize the even selection

based on the actual event rate detected by the LAT instrument. Pre-launch

studies as well as some first-year in-flight corrections led to the set of event

selection and instrument response function which were released to the public

under the name of Pass6 V3 (on August 2009). The residuals of cosmic-ray

induced background events for the three Pass6 V3 analysis classes are com-

pared to the isotropic unresolved extragalactic γ-ray level in Figure 5.1. For

the Diffuse class, the resulting rejection factor is 1:106 at some energies (e.g.,

10 GeV) while retaining ¡80% efficiency for retaining γ-ray events.

Part of my thesis work focused on the improvement of a LAT event selection

for the detection and analysis of transient sources in the Pass6 V3 framework

(section 5.2.2). A new set of event selection and corresponding instrument

response function is under development within the LAT collaboration and will

be released under the name of Pass7 in 2011. How my optimized event selection

for transient sources fit within the Pass7 framework will also be described and

compared to the characteristics in Pass6 V3.

5.1. INTRODUCTION TO LAT EVENT SELECTIONS 65

Figure 5.1: Ratio of the cosmic-ray induced residual background to the extra-galactic diffuse background inferred from EGRET observations [104] for eachof the three analysis classes (transient, source, diffuse) in the Pass6 framework.The integral EGRET diffuse flux is 1.45 107 ph cm2 s1 sr1 above 100MeV.


5.2 Optimization of event classes for GRB sci-

ence

5.2.1 Generalities

This section is meant as a general introduction to the topic of event selection

optimization that is useful to consider before going into the details of the

analyses we performed. Ideally, one would like to retain all the γ-ray signal

from the source of interest while rejecting the totality of the background events.

This is of course not possible in practice and what one is reduced to do is

maximize the γ-ray efficiency Eff , which is the ratio of the number of γ-

rays retained after selection to the incoming γ-rays hitting the plane of your

detector, while minimizing the backround rate B in your detector. Both of

these parameters, Eff and B, are dependent on several variables (energy,

spacecraft position, orientation, angle of incidence, conversion layer...) but for

sake of simplicity we will for now assume that we are dealing with a simple

counting γ-ray detector where Eff and B are unique numbers.

Let us define S as the counting rate in the detector of the source alone

(without any background) and S0 the source rate actually incoming onto the

detector plane so that S Eff S0. The measurement of S is normally

carried out by counting the source plus background (at an average rate of SB) for a time TSB (on-source time interval) and then measuring background

alone for a time TB (off-source time interval). The net rate due to the source

alone is then:

S N1

TSB N2

TB

where N1 and N2 are the total counts for each measure. Since we are dealing

with poissonian noise for our experiment, the uncertainty on S is then given

by:

5.2. OPTIMIZATION OF EVENT CLASSES FOR GRB SCIENCE 67

σS d

σN1

TSB

2

σN2

TB

2

d

N1

T 2SB

N2

T 2B

dS B

TSB B

TB

In our case, the time for observing the transient γ-ray signal TSB is de-

termined by the nature of the transitory object and it is not in our capacity

to change it. TB can also be considered as a given and much larger than TSBsince the procedure that we use to estimate background level makes use of

the whole LAT data set accumulated over the mission lifetime (see Appendix

A for details). Furthermore, we note that only statistical uncertainties are

included above when the backgournd estimation is actually dominated by sys-

tematics uncertainies which have non-trivial dependence with changing event

selections. In the end, it is a reasonable assumption to assume that the fluc-

tuation of the background during the on-source measurement will dominate

over the statistical uncertainty of the background estimation ( BTSB

¡¡ BTB

)

as well as the systematic uncertainty of the background estimation which is

estimated at 10-15% (see Appendix A) which remains true for on-source region

with À 40 background events (always the case during GRB prompt emission

for exemple). In the end:

σS w

dS B

TSB

We can now define two relevant Figure-Of-Merits (FOM) that we would

like to maximize for the detection and spectral analysis3 of γ-ray transient

observations:

• Detection: the significance of a signal can in first order be approximated

by SσB where as we mentioned above, σB is dominated by statistical

3although we have put ourself in the simple case of a counting experiment, a detectormeasuring the energy of each event can easily be seen as multiple simple counting detectorsoperating in different energy bands which makes the above discussion relevant.


uncertainty of the background emission during the on-source measure-

ment. A good FOM to maximize for such analysis would therefore be

S?B.

• Spectral analysis: the relative size of the spectral error bars with

respect to the actual source flux measured which is proportianal to

σSS9?S BS. A good FOM to maximize for such analysis would

therefore be S?S B.

5.2.2 Method for optimizating event classes for GRB

science

Most of the events detected by the LAT instrument are background cosmic

rays that we would like to separate from sources of γ-ray signal which we are

interested in. Ideally, one would like to remove the totality of the background

contamination while keeping the entire incoming gamma-ray signal. Unfortu-

nately, this is not possible in practice and any real-world experiment suffers at

some level from background contamination and loss of signal misinterpretated

as background. Furthermore efficiency at detecting signal and background

contamination usually work against each other. When reducing the former,

one immediately increases the latter and vice versa. Therefore, a compromise

between a high γ efficiency and a low background level needs to be found. And

this compromise of course strongly depends on the type of science that one is

interested in.

The broad range of LAT observations and analyses, from GRBs to ex-

tended diffuse radiation, lead to the definition of various event selections with

different rates of residual backgrounds (misclassified cosmic-rays) and γ-ray

efficiency. During the pre-launch studies, three different event selections were

defined [197]: the ’diffuse’ class with the lowest background contamination and

the best point-spread-function for the study of faint and diffuse sources (i.e.

diffuse gamma-ray emission), the ’source’ class with slightly better gamma

efficiency and slightly increased background rate (optimized at the time for

point source study although post-launch analysis found the ’diffuse’ class to

be more adapted for point source analysis in Pass6 V3 IRFs), and the ’tran-

sient’ class with the highest gamma efficiency at the cost of high background

contamination (optimized at the time for transient events).


In the case of GRB observations of the prompt emission, the extreme

brightness of those event on short time scale allow the background rejection

cuts to be relaxed relative to an analysis of a diffuse source covering a large

portion of the sky over longer periods of time. High energy extended emission

from GRBs is another story as it is usually faint and therefore necessitates a

purer event class such as the ’diffuse’ class to detect it. The ’diffuse’ class also

has a much narrower PSF which makes it ideal for precise localization when

plentiful of LAT ’diffuse’ events were detected by the instrument in coincidence

with a GRB trigger.

For object with a high γ-ray flux, a significant improvement in signal-to-

noise ratio can be obtained by increasing the effective area while keeping the

background rate at a reasonable level. The so-called ’transient’ event class

was developed for this specific purpose and is used for burst detection and

localization when not enough events are detected in the diffuse class for an

accurate localization determination. In the course of my thesis, I developed

a new event selection to further improve the detection and spectral analysis

of GRBs. Spectrum of astrophysical sources usually fall off rapidely (with a

typical high energy index of 2.3 for GRBs observed in the pre-Fermi era).

This means that most of the γ-ray photons are detected in the lower part of the

LAT energy range. For this reason, the low energy effective area of the LAT is

of crucial importance to improve the γ efficiency for GRB detection. Since the

LAT effective area falls off rapidly at low energy even for the ’transient’ class,

a small increase of the effective area in this region could have a substantial

effect (see figure 5.2 for the Pass6 V3 and Pass7 effective area of the ’transient’

class).

We developed a more relaxed set of cuts than the ’transient’ class in order

to enhance the LAT effective area at the expense of background contamina-

tion. We estimated the improvements through a Figure-of-Merit based analysis

which we will describe below. Our approach to develop new set of cuts was

simple: we incorporated ’transient’ class events by default and new events

were added based on physically motivated cuts. Each LAT event is described

by a set of merit variable which describe different properties of the interection

in the detector for this particular event. Contrary to the development of the

’transient’ class which used heavy classification tree training with simulated


data, we simply used some physical intuition in order to define new set of cuts

enhancing the γ efficiency while keeping the background rate at a reasonable

level.

One cut selection we developped is called ’S3’ and is defined with the

following logic:

S3 == [transient] || ([Onboard filter cuts] && AcdTileCount==0 && VtxAngle¡0 && CTBTkrCoreCalDoca 150))

with:

• ’[transient]’: set of cuts applied to obtain the transient events. The ’||’condition implies that the S3 selection is based on top of the transient

selection (all transient events are also S3 events).

• ’[Onboard filter cuts]’: set of cuts applied onboard the spacecraft in order

to reduce the event rate to a reasonable downlink rate for the Ku-Band

antenna.

• ’AcdTileCount’: number of ACD tiles fired. When this parameter is set

to zero, it means the ACD did not report any activity in coincidence with

the event detection. Because the ACD efficiency is quite high (99.97%),

most of the charged particle having this parameter set to zero went

through a ’crack’ of the instrument or came from the back of the detector

where the ACD shield is not present.

• ’VtxAngle’: angle between the two tracks converging at the vertex point.

This variable has positive value when two tracks are reconstructed (oth-

erwise a zero value) which is a signature of pair conversion (cosmic rays

only produce one track).

• ’CTBCoreCalDoca’: distance between the projected vertex (or track if

only one track) and the energy centroid in the calorimeter, evaluated

at the z-plane of the centroid. This condition is requiring the vertex

projection to be reasonably aligned with the energy deposition in the

calorimeter. Note that events not leaving any energy in the calorimeter

will not be included in the ’S3’ selection.


Based on our discussion in section 5.2, we define the following Figure-of-

Merit for spectral analysis:

• Spectral analysis:

FoMspectral Signal?Signal Background

pStrans∆T Btrans∆T q Effcut

EfftransbpStrans∆T Btrans∆T q Effcut

EfftransBcut∆T

?

∆T pStrans Btransq EffcutEfftransb

pStrans Btransq EffcutEfftrans

Bcut

Strans, Btrans and Efftrans are signal event rate, background rate and γ effi-

ciency for the transient selection respectively. ∆T is the approximate duration

during which the burst emit. What we are really interested in is the relative

values of this FoM for different event selections. For that purpose, notice that

FoMcut1FoMcut0 is independent of the duration ∆T and only depends on the

flux and high-energy index of the source. We will therefore look at FoMspectral

as a function of Strans, the transient event rate which is a direct observable,

as well as the source high-energy index.

To compute this FoM, we need to compute two quantities for each event

selection:

• The γ efficiency (Effcut) which can be defined as the ratio of events

passing the cut with the total number of events going through the geo-

metrical area of the detector. However, for each cut we will only compute

the ratio of the γ efficiency with the γ efficiency of the transient cut since

this is all that matters to compare the FoMs of various cuts. This value

will be computed from the Instrument Response Functions of each cut

which is derived directly from Monte-Carlo simulations of γ-rays inter-

acting with the LAT instrument.

• The background rate (Bcut) which will be derived directly from 500 orbits

( 1 month of operation) of real data which provides enough statistics

for the purpose of this study. Note that our definition of background in


this analysis includes all events that are not associated with the GRB

and therefore includes residual cosmic-rays as well as γ-rays originating

from the galactic and extragalactic background as well as from point

sources.

These quantities will be computed as a function of energy as different

energy threshold migh apply for the different analyses we are interested in.

In the following section, we provide the results of this Figure-of-Merit based

analysis.

5.3 Comparison of S3 with other classes

This analysis was initially developped under the Pass6 environment, meaning

that the new event class S3 was designed to significantly improve the analysis of

transient objects with respect to the Pass6 V3 ‘transient’ class. However this

new event selection will only be included in the next Pass7 environment which

will be the next official public release and involves substantial re-definition of

the ‘standard’ event classes including the ‘transient’ class. We will therefore

also provide a comparison of the differences in S3 characteristics between the

Pass6 and Pass7 environments.

The on-axis effective area of the Pass6 diffuse, transient and S3 cuts are

shown in the left panel of figure 5.2. The right panel shows the same event

selections for Pass7 although the ’diffuse’ class in Pass6 has by then been

renamed as the ’source’ class in Pass7 - the ‘source’ class was initially intended

for point source analysis while the ‘diffuse’ class was more for diffuse emission

analysis, but post-launch analyses with the Pass6 V3 ‘source’ class found the

’diffuse’ class more suitable for point source analysis (the initial intent of the

event class name will be restored with Pass7).

In Pass6 V3 ‘S3’ brings a significant improvement in effective area over the

Pass6 V3‘transient’ class. Pure effective area increase is on the order of 25%

at 100 MeV and 10% at 1 GeV. However this improvement in effective area

is much reduced in Pass7 with 10% improvement at 100 MeV and 5% at

1 GeV. This is due to the ‘transient’ class that has been significantly relaxed

in the Pass7 environment, therefore filling the gap that separated it from the

S3 class in Pass6.

5.3. COMPARISON OF S3 WITH OTHER CLASSES 73

Figure 5.2: On-axis effective area of the Pass6 diffuse, transient and S3 class(left panel) and of the Pass7 source, transient and S3 class (right panel).

From the knowledge of the effective area, one can derive the γ efficiency

as a function of the high-energy index of the source in the LAT energy range.

Figure 5.3 shows the Pass7 γ efficiency above 100 MeV for the ‘source’, ‘tran-

sient’ and ‘S3’ selection selections as a function of high-energy index. As one

could expect, soft bursts will benefit more from loose event selections at low

energy while hard bursts benefit is mostly from the high energy effective area

which shows smaller differences between the different classes thus the smaller

difference in γ efficiency.

The next thing we computed is background rates as a function of energy

which is plotted in figure 5.4 for both Pass6 and Pass7. The increase of effective

area in Pass7 has a visible cost in background rates up to a factor of two higher

at energies less than 100 MeV. Note however that the high energy background

is much reduced in the transient class although the effective area is higher

making Pass7 a lot cleaner in the high energy regime. One can also notice that

the transient and S3 event selections have very similar background rates above

100 MeV, in particular for Pass7, so that the increase in effective area for

the S3 class comes at a very little cost in terms of background contamination

above 100 MeV which makes this event class promising for spectral analysis

using ¡ 100 MeV events.

Armed with this knowledge of the γ efficiency and the background rates,

it is now possible to compare the Figure-of-Merit for the different cuts. The

relative values of the spectral FoM defined in section 5.2.2 is shown in figure


Figure 5.3: Pass7 γ efficiency above 100 MeV for different selections as afunction of the high-energy index. Soft bursts benefit more from loose eventselections at low energy while hard bursts benefit is mostly from the highenergy effective area which shows smaller differences between the differentclasses thus the smaller difference in γ efficiency.

Figure 5.4: Background rates as a function of energy for Pass6 (left) andPass7 (right). Note that despite the higher high energy effective area, the highenergy background is much reduced in the transient/S3 class making Pass7a lot cleaner in the high energy regime. Notice also that the transient andS3 event selections have very similar background rates above 100 MeV, inparticular for Pass7, so that the increase in effective area for the S3 class comesat a very little cost in terms of background contamination above 100 MeV

5.3. COMPARISON OF S3 WITH OTHER CLASSES 75

Figure 5.5: Relative values of the spectral Figure-of-Merit defined in section5.2.2 (left: Pass6; right: Pass7). A high energy index of -2.2 was assumed forthis plot but the results remain similar for other values of high energy index.For Pass7, the source class is to be preferred for a source below a transient rateof 0.2 Hz (0.1 when considering other high energy indices) while above thisvalue the S3 class has the highest FoM for bright sources with an increase of510% for Pass7 and 1520% for Pass6 (the transition is hard to see on thefigure as it occurs at lower signal rate of 0.02 Hz). The S3 improvement washigher in the Pass6 framework compare to the transient class since this classhas been much relaxed in the Pass7 framework. We note that the y-axis scale isarbitrary as only the relative value of FoMspectral matters to compare differentcuts (the absolute value depends on the specific burst characteristics)..


5.5 for an assumed high energy index of -2.2. The cleanest event selections

in the Pass6 (Pass6 V3 DIFFUSE) and Pass7 (P7 v2 source) environments

are found to have the highest FoM for faint sources analyses as one could

expect. Looser event classes are preferred for bright sources however, with

the S3 selections bringing the most improvement in FoMspectral. For Pass7,

the transition regime between the purest class and S3 gives a background

subtracted transient rate ¡ 100 MeV of 0.2 Hz (note that this value is a

direct observable a each source when the background contamination is well

known). Above this value, the S3 class has the highest FoM for bright sources

with an increase of 15 20% for Pass6 (the transition is hard to see on the

figure as it occurs at lower signal rate of 0.02 Hz) and 5 10% for Pass7.

The results only changes slightly as a function of high energy index with the

transition signal rate shifting from 0.1 Hz to 0.3 Hz as the index changes

from -3.0 to -1.5. We also checked any dependence with the angle to the LAT

boresight theta and that these results remain almost unaffected by a change in

theta (which affects both the background rate and the γ efficiency). In the end,

S3 is to be prefered over ‘transient’ to perform spectral analysis above 100 MeV

as long as the source flux is above the transition threshold which is the case

for almost all LAT detected GRBs. We note however that the improvement

brought by the S3 class over the ‘transient’ class was reduced when moving to

the Pass7 environment as the Pass7 ‘transient’ class was much relaxed making

the difference with S3 in terms of effective area and background rate small.

We also mention that a direct comparison of the Pass6 and Pass7 plot is not

directly applicable for these plots as the transient background rate is different

in each environment, requiring a shift along the x-axis to allow comparison.

As a final note, we mention that the Pass6 analysis led to the use of the

’S3’ event class for the spectral analysis of GRB 080825C [144] as a clear

improvement in FoM was found in the Pass6 environment. However, it was

then decided to wait for the official public release of S3 in Pass7 (in 2011) in

order to use it in further analysis.

Chapter 6

Detection procedure for a LAT

GRB

The Fermi satellite is monitoring a large fraction of the gamma-ray sky con-

tinuously1 making it an optimal instrument for observing transient sources

which will by definition display significant emission only for short time pe-

riods, at unpredictable time and region in the sky. In this section, we will

describe standard procedures developed by the LAT/GBM team in order to

detect, localize and announce significant emission of a GRB in the LAT en-

ergy range. Fermi LAT bursts are searched both on-board and on the ground

through different methods that will be described below. For completeness, we

will also give a brief description of the time-sequence for a GRB burst detection

and announcement to the GCN community.

6.1 GBM Burst Detection

Onboard the Fermi observatory the GBM monitors count rates of the NaI

detectors and look for a statistically significant increase. The GBM triggers

when two or more NaI detectors trigger. The number of counts in an en-

ergy band ∆E over a time bin ∆t is compared to the expected number of

background counts in this ∆E–∆t bin; the background is estimated from the

rate in a 17 sec time window prior to the time bin being tested. The GBM

1except during its passage in the South Atlantic Anomaly region which account for 17%of the duty cycle.

77

78 CHAPTER 6. DETECTION PROCEDURE FOR A LAT GRB

trigger uses the twelve NaI detectors in the following energy band ∆E=50–

300 keV, and accumulation time from 16 ms to 4.096 s with various trigger

threshold to avoid false triggers due to background fluctuations: 7.5 sigma for

16 and 32 ms, 5.0 sigma for 64 and 128 ms, 4.5 sigma for 256 ms to 4.096 s.

Other energy bands where used on short time window in particular for Soft

Gamma-ray Repeaters (20-50 keV) and Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes (¥ 100

keV and ¥ 300 keV). Each time scale uses two separate search window offset

by half the accumulation time in order to avoid splitting the burst counts in

two separate search windows. This and the additional time scales used2 led

the GBM instrument to detect more bursts than initially predicted based on

simple estimation based on BATSE detection rate (see [118] for more details).

When the GBM triggers it sends a series of burst alert packets through the

spacecraft and TDRSS to the Earth. Some of these burst packets, including the

burst location calculated onboard, are also sent to the LAT unit to assist in the

LAT onboard GRB detection. Burst localizations are calculated by comparing

the rates in the different detectors since the effective area of each detectors is

strongly dependent on the burst position in the FoV. The continuous GBM

data that are routinely telemetered to the ground can also be searched for

bursts that did not pass the GBM onboard trigger criteria. The GBM counting

rate in 8 different energy channels with 0.256 s resolution and in 128 energy

channels with 4.096 s resolution.

Finally bright and hard GBM bursts (as well as onboad LAT detection)

will result in automated repointing of the spacecraft in order to keep the GRB

within the LAT FoV as practically feasible (the Earth albedo and the sun

position imposes restrictions on the spacecraft pointing) for improved efficiency

at detecting high-energy afterglow. The repointing is currently operational for

the following 5 hours after the burst trigger time.

6.2 Onboard GRB Detection in the LAT

The LAT flight software can detect bursts, localize them, and report their

positions to the ground through the burst alert telemetry. The rapid notifica-

tion of ground-based telescopes through GCN is intended for multi-wavelength

2BATSE trigger had one energy band—usually ∆E=50–300 keV—and three time bins—∆t 0.064, 0.256, and 1.024 s.

6.2. ONBOARD GRB DETECTION IN THE LAT 79

afterglow observations of high energy GRBs. The onboard burst trigger is de-

scribed in greater details in [119].

The onboard processing for GRB detection in the LAT can be subdivided

into three steps: initial event filtering; event track reconstruction; and fi-

nally burst detection and localization. In the first step all events—photons

and charged particles—that trigger the LAT hardware are filtered to remove

events that are of no further scientific interest (onboard gamma filter). The

events that survive this first filtering constitute the science data stream that

is downlinked to the ground for further processing. These events are also fed

into the second step of the onboard burst processing pathway.

The second step is a crude reconstruction for all the events in the science

data stream. The onboard reconstruction is less accurate, resulting in a larger

PSF that obtained in the on-ground reconstruction and a poorer background

rejection.

The rate of events that pass the onboard gamma filter is 400 Hz. The

event rate that events are sent to the onboard burst trigger, which requires

3-dimensional tracks, is 120 Hz. For comparison the on-ground processing

creates a transient event class with a rate of 2 Hz (see section 4.3.4). This

difference in background rate is the main difference between the on-board and

on-ground sensitivity to GRB emission.

The third step in the burst processing is recognition as a burst, which

considers the events that have passed of the first two steps, and thus have

been assigned arrival times, energies and positions in the sky. It will search

for temporal and spatial event clustering using an unbinned likelihood method.

The GRB alert trigger has two tiers.

The first Tier operates on a set of N events (curent setting: N 40200).

All of these N events are individually considered as the seed position for a

potential GRB. In the current setting, all events within θ0 17 around the

seed position are being considered as it is approximately the 68% containment

radius of the onboard 3D tracks at low event energies. A spatial and temporal

probability are then calculated as follow:

PS M

i1

|log10ppsiq| M

i1

log10

1 cospθiq1 cospθmq

. (6.0)


PT M

i1

|log10pptiq| M

i1

log10p1 ert∆Tiq . (6.0)

where rt is the rate at which events occur within the area of the cluster.

And the trigger criterion is:

ξPT PS ¡ Θ (6.0)

where ξ is an adjustable parameter that assigns relative weights to the

spatial and temporal clustering, and Θ is the threshold (current setting: ξ 1

and Θ 150).

The onboard burst localization algorithm uses a weighted average of the

positions of the cluster’s events where the weighting is the inverse of the an-

gular distance of an event from the burst position. Since the purpose of the

algorithm is to find the burst position, the averaging must be iterated, with

the weighting used in one step calculated from the position from the previous

step. The initial location is the unweighted average of the events positions.

The convergence criterion is a change of 1 arcmin between iterations (with a

maximum of 10 iterations). The position uncertainty depends on the number

and energies of events, but the goal is an uncertainty less that 1. Using Monte

Carlo simulations, this methodology was found to be superior to others that

were tried.

Tier 2 is very similar to tier 1 in principle although it will run with slightly

different parameter: tier 1 localization is the only seed position used, N 500,

θ0 10, ξ 1, Θ 150. If this value of Θ is exceeded, a tier 2 trigger

results and the cluster events are run through the localization algorithm. The

resulting trigger time, burst location and number of counts in four energy

bands are then sent to the ground through the burst alert telemetry.

The parameters used by the onboard burst detection and localization soft-

ware are affected by the actual event rates, and are bound to change as we

learn more about onboard event rates. Currently the thresholds are set to

keep the false trigger rate at an acceptable level. The falso positive level being

set at À 0.3 GRB/year which would have (this configuration was only recently

implemented) onboard triggered 5 of the 14 GRBs detected during the first

year and a half of Fermi operation.

6.3. ON-GROUND AUTOMATED SCIENCE PROCESSING 81

6.3 On-ground Automated Science processing

A burst detection algorithm is applied on the ground to all LAT counts af-

ter the events are reconstructed and classified to detect bursts that were not

detected by the onboard algorithm. The ground-based search is performed af-

ter each satellite downlink and subsequent data processing. The ground-based

blind search algorithm is very similar to the onboard algorithm described in the

previous section, but will benefit from the full ground-based event reconstruc-

tion and background rejection techniques that are applied to produce the LAT

counts used for astrophysical analysis. Therefore for these data, the particle

background rates is lower than the onboard rates by at least two orders-of-

magnitude. Furthermore, the reconstructed photon directions and energies is

more accurate than the onboard quantities.

The first stage of the ground-based algorithm is applied to consecutive sets

of 20 to 100 events. Based on reference distribution for the null-case derived

from in-flight data, the burst detection threshold was set at 5σ. If a candi-

date burst is found in the ground-based analysis, counts from a time range

bracketing the trigger time undergoes further processing to determine the sig-

nificance of the burst. If the burst is sufficiently significant, it is localized and

its spectrum is analyzed. These analyses use the unbinned maximum likeli-

hood method that is applied to LAT point sources. The Automatic Science

Processing software has blindly detected 6 GRBs up to January 2010: GRB

080916C, GRB 081024B, GRB 090217, GRB 090510, GRB 090902B and GRB

090926A.

6.4 Human-in-the-loop analysis

For every bursts detected by the GBM, the onboard or onground algorithm,

or any other instruments (e.g. Swift), a Burst Advocate (BA) will look for

GRB signal in the LAT. A LAT BA is on duty at all time in order to permorm

a prompt analysis of the burst candidate and possibly send a circular to the

Gamma-Ray bursts Coordinates Network (GCN). This procedure involving

a human interaction is the most robust approach to convincingly announce

the detection of a GRB by the LAT instrument because of the very unique

observing conditions of each burst, such as if the burst is detected after a


repointing of the instrument (which makes the background determination a

challenge). We here describe the standart procedure for the Burst Advocate

developped by the LAT team.

While the LAT BA is on shift, he/she is responsible to look for any GRB

alert coming through a GCN notice or circular. If such alert is emitted, he/she

will be in charge of analysing the LAT data and estimating the likelihood of a

possible emission in the LAT energy range. Because the data processing has

a 6 to 10 hours latency and it takes some time to perform the human analysis

and make sure it is reliable, the detection of a LAT burst via a human-in-the-

loop interaction is usually not announced less than 10 hours after a burst

trigger.

Since the GBM and the LAT FoV perfectly overlap by design, most of the

burst alerts with a localization that falls within the LAT FoV are generated

by the GBM instrument. A first crucial information to derive for a particular

GBM or Swift burst is the temporal variation of the LAT exposure at the burst

location from the time it triggered. Figure 6.1 is an example of how the angle

of the GBM best localization with respect to the local earth zenith (top) and

the LAT boresight (bottom) vary as a function of time.

At θ 60 the LAT effective area is still 13

of that for θ 0 while it drops

to 110

of the incident angle value for θ 70 (see fig. 4.5). Therefore bursts

with θ ¤ 70 have non-negligeable exposure during their prompt emission

and are interesting candidates to look at. Bursts with high angle to the LAT

boresight during the prompt emission have usually very low chance to display

any emission in the LAT using a standart analysis. For example, the LAT

team announced the detection of GRB 081215, a bursts with θ 86 which

was detected using a non-standart even selection [123].

Because the background rate is quite small for ROI less than 15 (typically

less than 0.1-0.5 Hz), it is possible for the BA to detect a possible significant

LAT emission by simply performing a ’by-eye’ analysis and looking at tem-

poral and spatial distribution of events detected around the burst trigger and

localization. Fig. 6.2 shows an example of such lightcurve and count map

for GRB 080825C which was the first LAT GRB detected with a significance

¡ 5σ. The increased count rate and a clustering of events is visible in the

plots but an estimation of the exact significance of the detection requires very

6.5. ESTIMATIONOF BACKGROUNDAND SIGNIFICANCE OF DETECTION83

Figure 6.1: Example of angles of the GBM best localization with the local earthzenith (top) and with the LAT boresight (bottom). These plots help determinewhen a burst location is above the earth horizon, not too contaminated byearth albedo, and within the LAT FoV after the burst trigger.

careful analysis that will be presented in the next section.

6.5 Estimation of background and significance

of detection

An accurate estimation of the background level at the time of the GRB trigger

and around the location of the burst is crucial to estimate significance of the de-

tection. One approach is the so-called ’off-source’ technique which determines

background from a surrounding spatial region or time window with respect

to the region where the signal is detected (so-called ’on-source’ region). How-

ever the rate of transient events is a strong function of the satellite position in

the Earth coordinate (strong correlation with geomagnetic latitude), the angle

of the GRB location to the LAT boresight, the position of the burst in the

sky. A strong limitation for the ’off-source’ technique is the faithfulness of the

’off-source’ region to represent the background in the ’on-source’ region. This

is usually fairly easy for high counting rate instrument which have smoothly


Figure 6.2: Quick look at GRB 080825C lightcurve (left panel) and count map(right panel) around the GBM localization (black cross) and trigger time. Thepresence of an increase count rate and a clustering of events around the GBMlocalization is visible by eye although a detailed analysis is necessary in orderto claim for a significant detection of this burst by the LAT.

varying background over time and/or space. However, the LAT background

level changes rapidly and the event rate is very low which prevents us to esti-

mate the background level during the ’on-source’ interval reliably (see below

for an exception with the case of GRB 080825C though).

To circumvent the difficulty in background estimation, we adopt another

method which relies on past data at the orbit location to estimate the back-

ground level in the ’on-source’ region. The basic idea is to bin the data into

specific observing environment (geomagnetic latitude, angle to the LAT bore-

sight, Earth zenith angle...) and accumulate enough statistics for any possible

conditions a GRB might be observed in. We refer the interested reader to

Appendix A where the details of the method we use is provided. Once the

background spectrum is accurately predicted, one can compute the significance

for any temporal increase or spatial clustering of events. In order to assess the

significance of a GRB observation, we use four independent statistical methods

which are described below and which we compare in the end.

The first method computes the probability of the null hypothesis being true

(the probability that the observed number of counts in the on-source region

is due to a background fluctuation) in a frequentist approach where the back-

ground uncertainty is treated in a semi-Bayesian way [139]. Given a certain

estimated number of background counts B during the on-source interval, we

6.5. ESTIMATIONOF BACKGROUNDAND SIGNIFICANCE OF DETECTION85

compute the probability of the actual on-source measurement Non being con-

sistent with this value. PsuppNon, Bq expresses the probability of the on-source

measurement being equal or larger than Non when only statistical fluctuations

are considered:

PsuppNon, Bq 8

NNon

eB BN

N !. (6.0)

Because of systematic uncertainties in the background estimation, each

possible value for the number of background counts is weighted by a Gaussian

distribution with a mean of Best and a standard deviation of 0.15Best (since

we estimate our systematics to be about 15%, see Appendix A): GausspBq.We then integrate over all the possible values of B to compute a weighted

probability:

Pnull ³80dB GausspBq PsuppNon, Bq³8

0dB GausspBq (6.0)

The second method is fully Bayesian. A GRB detection by the LAT is

analyzed as an on-source/off-source observation in the time domain. This

method requires a reliable ’off-source’ data. This was possible only for GRB

080825C since the inclination angle of the best source position with respect to

the instrument boresight moved slowly during a ¡ 500 sec time interval before

the trigger time. The spacecraft motion was favorable for GRB 080825C,

allowing an unusually long off-source interval to determine the background

rate. For other GRBs, spacecraft motion causes the background in the LAT to

vary more quickly, limiting the time for which an off-source interval measures

the same background as that of the on-source interval, and therefore limiting

the applicability of this method.

The Bayesian method assumes that the counts during the background in-

terval are due to a Poissonian process with rate b. To evaluate the probability

that a source has been detected during the on-source interval, the method

compares two hypotheses for the Poisson rate during the on-source interval:

that observed counts are due to the same background rate b, or that they are

due to a background plus source rate b s. This second hypothesis is insuf-

ficiently specified to quantitatively solve the problem: one must specify some

plausible range for the source rate s using prior data (i.e., not using the LAT


observations). We produce a ‘reasonable’ estimate for the LAT source counts

by extrapolating the time-integrated spectral fit of the GBM data to the LAT

energy range. The photon model from the GBM fit is convolved with the LAT

response function to predict the number of LAT counts. A real LAT obser-

vation could have a smaller value than this estimate because of a statistical

fluctuation, or because of a spectral break between the GBM and LAT energy

range. Alternatively, a real LAT observation could actually exceed this esti-

mate for the maximum rate if there were an additional and distinct spectral

component to the one found with the GBM data alone. Nevertheless, this is

a reasonable ‘prior’ estimate for the maximum counts expected in the LAT.

Under the assumptions described, both [140] and [141] give analytic solutions

for the probability P that the source is detected.

A third method computes the significance with a fully frequentist method

using the on-source/off-source approach as described by [equation (17) of 143].

And the last method uses an unbinned likelihood analysis of the LAT data

which takes into account the energy-dependent PSF in event-by-event basis.

In the case of GRBs where high energy events (having the smallest point-

spread-function) have been detected, this method is expected to provide the

highest significance since it fully takes into account the spatial information for

each event.

It should be noted that because such search for LAT excess is performed

on all GRBs triggered by the GBM and other instruments (when the burst is

in the LAT FoV), it is important to consider multi-trials in our analysis. For

independent searches as is the case here, the post-trials probability threshold

for obtaining a 5σ result is Pposttrial 1p1P5σq1N where N is the number

of trials and P5σ the 5σ probability threshold for a single search ( 5.7107).

We naturally applied this correction for all the LAT search we performed.

6.6 LAT GCN circular

Once the LAT detects a GRB and its localization deemed reliable, the BA

with help from other members of the Fermi GRB group writes a GCN cir-

cular containing relevant information for follow-up observations. The circular

usually contains the following information on the burst:

6.6. LAT GCN CIRCULAR 87

• Time window where a significant emission in the LAT is observed.

• Significance of the detection

• Best LAT localization with its error (crucial for afterglow follow-up)

• Any additional information that might be relevant to prompt for follow-

up observations (unusual high intensity, highest energies observed, high

energy afterglow...)

• Point of contact for the burst (usually the BA)

For the detailed procedure used for localization and high energy afterglow,

we refer the interested reader to [144, 273].

It is the prime responsibility of a BA to deliver this LAT circular to the

GRB community in the shortest time possible. However, mostly due to latency

of satellite downlink , data processing and the necessary time to perform a

decent LAT analysis, the emission of such circular is usually delayed by at least

10 hours after the initial burst alert. Here is a brief outline of the sequence

of events leading (potentially) to the announcement of a LAT GRB detection

through the GCN network3:

• T0: GBM (or Swift) GCN alert (with possible Automatic Repoint Re-

quest of the spacecraft)

– T0 1 3hours: GBM human-in-the-loop localization provided

to LAT BA (few degrees accuracy typically)

• T0 6 10hours: LAT data available

– 30 60minutes later: Automatic Science Processing + human-

in-the-loop LAT localization (accuracy depends on burst brightness

and hardness: arcmin to degree)

– 1 2hours later: Swift Target-of-Opportunity (ToO) request

(if accuracy À 10 arcmin)

• T0 10 15hours: First LAT GCN circular

3timing sequence only intends to show the average trend but might actually not berepresentative for certain specific bursts.


• T0 24 48hours: Second LAT GCN circular

Finally, we mention that we also published LAT GCN circulars for bright

hard GBM bursts which triggered an autonomous repointing of the spacecraft

and which were not detected by the LAT instrument (e.g. GRB 091010, GRB

091024). For those we provided upper limits in various time intervals.

Chapter 7

High energy prompt emission of

GRBs detected by the LAT

The Fermi LAT unique sensitivity and low deadtime is opening a whole new

era to explore the high energy emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts. In this section,

we will focus more particularly on the high energy prompt emission which in

the pre-Fermi era is fairly unknown territory on the observational side with

only few low statistics detection by the EGRET and AGILE instruments. For

a couple of bright bursts, more than hundred photons have been detected by

the LAT which allows very precise investigation of the temporal and spec-

tral characteristics of the prompt emission of these bursts over a wide energy

range, typically from tens of keVs up to tens of GeVs. The LAT also detects

with somewhat lower significance bursts which were until known unaccessible

to any high energy instrument. A rate of 10 GRBs/year detected by the

LAT is therefore steadily increasing the population of GRBs detected at high

energy allowing us to spot repeating features in various bursts which is key

to eventually derive a common theoretical framework for the interpretation

of those objects. We provide in this section a detailed description of the key

features of the prompt emission of LAT detected GRBs up to January 2010.

Section 7.1 gives an overview of general characteristics of LAT detected GRBs

as well as a discussion of LAT detection rates. Section 7.2 describes one of

the main features observed in LAT GRBs: a delay of the high-energy emission

with respect to the sub-MeV emission. Section 7.3 provides a detailed descrip-

tion of the time-resolved spectroscopy performed on the prompt emission of

89

90CHAPTER 7. HIGH ENERGY PROMPT EMISSION OF GRBS DETECTED BY THE LAT

LAT detected bursts that have sufficient statistics for such analysis. Finally,

section 7.4 briefly discusses the possible theoretical interpretation of the var-

ious spectro-temporal features observed on LAT GRBs (sub-section 7.4.1) as

well as the type of constraints Fermi data allow us to put on the bulk Lorentz

factor (sub-section 7.4.2).

7.1 Overview of LAT detected GRBs

After one year and a half of operation (up to January 22nd 2010), GBM de-

tected 375 bursts (detection rate of 0.7 GRB/day) among which 193 where

in the LAT field-of-view - which is arbitrarily defined as Θ 75 where Θ is

the angle between the GRB best localization and the LAT boresight. In total,

14 of those GRBs were detected by the LAT instrument with a significance of

more than 5σ (detection rate of 0.75 GRB/month). All those LAT detec-

tion were reported to the scientific community via one or more GCN circular.

Table 7.1 provides general information on these LAT detected GRBs.

Blue stars in figures 7.1 show the position of the LAT detected bursts in

the celestial sky. Similarly to the GRBs without any high energy emission

detected, the LAT GRBs do not show any signs of anisotropy or correlation

with the galactic plane given the level of statistics. Besides their cosmological

origin has been verified through redshift measurement or a few LAT bursts.

Figure 7.2 reprents the GBM and LAT detected bursts in the spacecraft coor-

dinate or more precisely to the angle between the GRB best localization and

the LAT boresight. All bursts (except GRB 081215A which was quite unusual)

are detected with incidence angle less than 60 below which the LAT effective

area drops rapidely from one-third the on-axis value to zero (see figure 4.5).

Fig. 7.2 show that the LAT is mainly sensitive to bright GBM bursts although

it does not take into account the hardness of a burst or his temporal profile.

Hard bursts will of course be easier to detect in the LAT energy range. It was

found that the LAT detections do not correlate perfectely with the GBM flu-

ence as GRB 081024B show in figure 7.2. The hardness of this bursts allowed

for its detection compare to other brighter but softer bursts.

An interesting question to ask ourselves is whether or not the actual detec-

tion rates observed on orbits match with pre-launch expectations [105]. The

7.1. OVERVIEW OF LAT DETECTED GRBS 91

GRB Sig. Θ ∆T(sec)[type]

Events¡ 100MeV

Events¡ 1GeV

Emax(GeV)

z GCNcir-cu-lars

080825C Á 6σ 60 35[long]

10 0 0.6 - [120]

080916C Á 35σ 49 80[long]

145 13 14 4.3 [121]

081024B Á 10σ 19 1[short]

10 2 3 - [122]

081215A Á 8σ: 86 **[long]

- - - - [123]

090217 Á 8σ 34 30[long]

10 1 1 - [124]

090323 Á 5σ:: 57 * **[long]

20 Á 1 7 3.6 [125]

090328 Á 8σ:: 65 * **[long]

20 Á 1 24 0.7 [126][127]

090510 Á 45σ 14 * 2[short]

150 20 31 0.9 [128][129]

090626 Á 8σ 18 * **[long]

20 1 2 - [130]

090902B Á 40σ 51 * 20[long]

200 30 33 1.8 [131][132]

090926A Á 40σ 48 * 20[long]

150 50 20 2.1 [133][134]

091003A Á 10σ 12 * 21[long]

20 2 3 0.9 [135]

091031A Á 6σ 22 35[long]

20 0 0.7 - [131]

100116A Á 6σ 29 35[long]

10 3 2 - [137]

Table 7.1: List of GRBs detected by the LAT up to January 2010 along withsome general information. The Test-Statistic (TS) is computed via a likelihoodfit for a point source (:: based on specific analysis requiring non-standard dataselection; ::: emission is weak for these bursts so the significance was based onan extended emission analysis carefully taking into account background level).Θ is the angle between the GRB best localization and the LAT boresight at thetime of the GBM trigger (* specifies when an ARR has been triggered). ∆T isan approximate estimate of the duration of the high energy prompt emission(this value is only indicative as the transition between prompt emission andextended emission is extremely subtle to define; **: the signal is too weak togive a rough estimate of the prompt emission). Boxes with no entry meansthat the information is unknown or extremely difficult to estimate.


Figure 7.1: Position of GBM and LAT detected GRBs on the celestial sphere.Up to the January 22nd 2010, GBM detected 375 GRBs among which 14 weredetected by the LAT. No signs of anisotropy or correlation with the galacticplane can be observed given the level of statistics.

Figure 7.2: Position of GBM and LAT detected GRBs in the instrument co-ordinates; more precisely with respect to the angle between the GRB bestlocalization and the LAT boresight since the azimuthal angle has fairly loweffect on the instrument response.


study performed in [105] was based on a sample of bright BATSE GRBs [106]

for which the fit to a Band spectrum over the BATSE energy range [20 keV

- 2 MeV] was extrapolated to the LAT energy range without assuming any

unusual behavior such as spectral cutoff or rising additional component. Fig.

7.3 shows the number of expected bursts per year as a function of the number

of photons per burst detected by the LAT. The different lines refer to differ-

ent energy threshold (100 MeV, 1 GeV, 10 GeV). Dashed lines are a similar

extrapolation but only using bursts with high energy index β smaller than -2

to exclude cases with a rising νFν spectrum at high energy which is either

indicative of an inaccurate β determination or requires a spectral curvature at

high energy.

All 14 LAT GRBs had ¡ 10 photons above 100 MeV which corresponds to

a rate of 9.3 GRB/yr. 4 bursts where particularly bright in the LAT with

¡ 1 photon above 10 GeV, ¡ 10 photons above 1 GeV, and ¡ 100 photons

above 100 MeV. This corresponds to a bright LAT GRB detection rate of 2.7

GRB/yr (with a rather large uncertainty due to the small number statistics).

There were also 11 GRBs with ¡ 1 photon above 1 GeV, corresponding to

7.3 GRB/yr. Ellipses in fig. 7.3 report those different rates with the vertical

size being representative of the uncertainty in this number due to the low

statistics of detected GRBs. The agreement found with the expected numbers

suggests that, on average, there is no significant and systematic excess or

deficit of high-energy emission in the LAT energy range relative to such an

extrapolation from lower energies. We note that it is still possible for a limited

fraction of bursts to display such significant high energy excess and section

7.3 will address cases where this behavior was observed. It is also possible

for the majority of the bursts to display a slight excess above low energy

extrapolation but this is currently not detectable at the population level given

the low statistics of LAT detected bursts.

The observed GRB detection rate implies that, on average, only about

10 20% of the energy that is radiated during the prompt GRB emission

phase is channeled into the LAT energy range (corresponding to a simple

Band function extrapolation), suggesting that in most GRBs the high-energy

radiative output does not significantly affect the total energy budget. This

is quite an important fact for the whole issue of looking for correlations of


Figure 7.3: LAT GRB detection rates (color ellipses) superimposed on top ofpre-launch expected rates based on the extrapolation of a Band spectrum fitfrom the BATSE energy range [105]. The ellipses inner color indicates theminimal photon energy (green, yellow and cyan correspond to 0.1, 1 and 10

GeV, respectively), while their height indicates the uncertainty (?N

1.5 year)

on the corresponding LAT detection rate ( N

1.5 year) due to the small number

N of detected GRBs.


Figure 7.4: The fluence at high (0.1 10 GeV) versus low (20 keV 2 MeV)energies (from [146]), for 4 long (080825C, 080916C, 090217, 090902B) and2 short (081024B, 090510) duration LAT GRBs. The diagonal lines indicatehigh to low energy fluence ratios of 1%, 10%, and 100%.

a distance independent parameter with the total energetics of bursts. Short

GRBs, however, appear to be different in this respect as the high energy output

observed on the few short bursts detected by the LAT was on the same order

of magnitude as the energy output in the sub-MeV domain (see figure 7.4).

We note however a possible observational bias in this plot as long bursts might

be difficult to detect in the lower left corner since the event rate in the NaI

detectors might be too faint to trigger GBM and a LAT only detection is

difficult due to the low high energy fluence.

Because different fundamental processes dominate the photonic emission

at different time and energy regime, it is crucial to investigate the evolutionary

behavior of GRB prompt emission both as a function of those two parameters:

time and energy. In principle, one would like to know the continuous behavior

of a source as a function of time and energy. However, this is a very complex

problem that is more easily tackled by binning one dimension and investigate

the continuous evolution in the other dimensions in each bin. The choice of the

binning is usually subjective but it is important to choose it carefully, based


on the physics if possible. This time-energy phase space can be approached

with two slightly different approach. A first approach investigates the spec-

tral behavior of the burst as it evolves with time, this is usually refered as

time-resolved spectroscopy. Another approach investigates the lightcurve in

different energy intervals. This could be refered as ’energy-resolved temporal

analysis’. The following sections will use both approaches in order to look at

specific features from different viewing angles.

Although the sample of bursts detected at high energy is still limited -

especially bursts with high statistics which are needed to detect temporal and

spectral features - some re-occuring features have been observed during the

prompt emission of LAT detected GRBs after one year and a half of oper-

ation. We now propose an overall description of the key features of LAT

GRBs focusing on the prompt emission. It is for the first time possible to

perform detailed temporal and spectral analysis of the high energy prompt

emission thanks to a few bright and hard bursts detected with unprecedented

high statistics by the LAT instrument. However these high statistics bursts do

not constitute the bulk of the LAT GRB sample with only 4 bursts observed

with ¡ 100 photons up to January 2010 while the LAT detected a total of 14

bursts. High statistics GRBs in the LAT are extremely useful laboratory to

learn about GRB physics as we will present in the following section but one

has to be very careful to draw conclusions on the overall GRB population.

The diversity of phenomenology observed on the 4 bright LAT bursts is an-

other incentive for great caution in extrapolating the characteristics observed

on bright bursts to generic population features.

7.2 Delay of the high energy emission

This section presents a key feature observed on all bright LAT GRBs: a delay

of the high energy emission with respect to the onset of the sub-MeV emission

(section 7.2.1). Section 7.2.2 addresses the case of faint LAT GRBs where this

feature is not strong enough to be detected on individual bursts. The absence

(or lack of significance) of a specific feature in a faint GRB could simply be

due to a lack of statistics so section 7.2.2 estimates the significance of this

feature for some faint bursts.

7.2. DELAY OF THE HIGH ENERGY EMISSION 97

7.2.1 Bright bursts: GRB 080916C, 090510, 090902B,

090926A

The lightcurves of the 4 brightest bursts observed by the LAT during its first

year of operation are shown in figure 7.5 (GRB 080916C), 7.6 (GRB 090510),

7.7 (GRB 090902B), and 7.8 (GRB 090926A). In each of these figures, the

panel ’LAT (All events)’ represents all events passing the LAT onboard filter

which have a reconstructed track - and for which we therefore have directional

information - while the ’LAT (¡ 100 MeV)’ shows events for which the energy

reconstruction was good enough to be used for spectral analysis. The emission

seen in the ’LAT (All events)’ lightcurves is mostly the result of the detection

of low energy (20 MeV E 100 MeV) photons which unfortunately can not

be used for spectral analysis as their energy reconstruction is too poor (energy

deposit in the calorimeter is low or inexistent). We futher note that the NaI,

BGO and LAT (’all event’) lightcurves are background subtracted whereas

the LAT (¡ 100 MeV) and LAT (¡ 1 GeV) are not since they are mostly

background free event selection. Vertical dotted-dashed lines are boundaries

for the time windows that were used for time-resolved spetroscopy and that

will be presented in section 7.3.

A clear feature observed in these bright LAT bursts is a lack of significant

LAT emission while the NaI and/or BGO detectors already have significant

emission in their detectors. This is especially striking when comparing the

onset of the emission detected by the NaI and BGO and the emission detected

by the LAT above 100 MeV. The significant increase in the high energy event

rate is observed but with a time delay which is much longer than the typical

variability time seen during the subsequent prompt emission. This feature will

be refered as a ’delay’ of the high energy emission (¡ 100 MeV) with respect

to the keV-MeV emission, however one should keep in mind that this feature is

temporal (as the word ’delay’ suggests) as well as spectral in nature. Indeed,

labeling this feature as a ’delay’ of a certain energy window (¡ 100 MeV) with

respect to another energy window ( keV-MeV) is somewhat restrictive. A

powerful way to look at this feature is to investigate the spectral evolution of

the burst during the begining of the prompt emission where the lack of high

energy emission followed by its gradual appearance is observed. Such detailed

time-resolved spectroscopy has been performed on all these four bright bursts


00108060402002

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

500

1000

1500

Co

un

ts/s

ec

0

1000

2000

3000

Time since trigger (s)

0 5 10 15

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

500

1000

1500

0.0

3.6

7.7

15.8

54.7

100.8

edcba

4 + NaI

3GBM NaI

(8 keV-260 keV)

00108060402002

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

200

400

Co

un

ts/s

ec

0

500

1000


0 5 10 15

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

200

4000GBM BGO

(260 keV-5 MeV)

00108060402002

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

100

200

300

Co

un

ts/s

ec

0

200

400

600


0 5 10 15

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

100

200

300LAT

(no selection)

00108060402002

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

5

Co

un

ts/s

ec

0

5

10

15


0 5 10 15

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

5

10LAT

(> 100 MeV)


-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

1

2

3

Co

un

ts/s

ec

0

2

4

6


0 5 10 15

Co

un

ts/b

in

0

0.5

1

1.5LAT

(> 1 GeV)

Figure 7.5: Lightcurves for GRB 080916C observed by the GBM and the LAT,from lowest to highest energies. The inset panels give a view of the first 15s from the trigger time. In all cases, the bin width is 0.5s; the per-secondcounting rate is reported on the right for convenience. The time windows (a)to (e) represent the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy.


Coun

ts/B

in

0

20

40

RATE

[Hz]

0

2000

4000

aa ba b ca b c d

9 + NaI7 + NaI6GBM NaI (8 keV-260 keV)

Time since trigger (s)0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Coun

ts/b

in

0100200300

0 5 0 0 5 1 1 5 2 2 5 3

Coun

ts/B

in

0

50

100

RATE

[Hz]

0

5000

100001 +GBM BGO0GBM BGO

(260 keV-5 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

500

0 5 0 0 5 1 1 5 2 2 5 3

Coun

ts/B

in

0

20

40

60

RATE

[Hz]

0

2000

4000

6000LAT(All events)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

200

400

0 5 0 0 5 1 1 5 2 2 5 3

Coun

ts/B

in

0

2

4

6

RATE

[Hz]

0

200

400

600LAT(> 100 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

10

20

0Time since T-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Ener

gy [M

eV]

310

410

LAT EVENTS(> 1 GeV)

Figure 7.6: Lightcurves for GRB 090510 observed by the GBM and the LAT,from lowest to highest energies. The inset panels give a view from 0.5 to 1second after the trigger time. In all cases, the bin width is 0.2s; the per-secondcounting rate is reported on the right for convenience. The time windows (a)to (d) represent the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy.


Coun

ts/B

in

0

200

400

RATE

[Hz]

0

2000

4000

aa ba b ca b c da b c d ea b c d e fa b c d e f g

+ 2 + NaI1 + NaI0GBM NaI 10 + NaI9 + NaI

(8 keV-14.3 keV)

Time since trigger (s)0 10 20 30

Coun

ts/b

in

0

5000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

1000

2000

3000

RATE

[Hz]

0

10000

20000

30000 + 2 + NaI1 + NaI0GBM NaI

10 + NaI9 + NaI (14.3 keV-260 keV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

50000

100000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

200

400

600

800

RATE

[Hz]

0

2000

4000

60001 +GBM BGO0GBM BGO

(260 keV-5 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

10000

20000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

20

40

60

ATE

[Hz]

0

200

LAT(All events)

Coun

ts/B

in

0

2

4

RATE

[Hz]

0

10

20LAT(> 100 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

20

40

0Time since T0 20 40 60 80 100

Ener

gy [M

eV]

310

410

LAT EVENTS(> 1 GeV)

Figure 7.7: Lightcurves for GRB 090902B observed by the GBM and the LAT,from lowest to highest energies. The inset panels give a view of the first 30s from the trigger time. In all cases, the bin width is 0.5s; the per-secondcounting rate is reported on the right for convenience. The time windows (a)to (g) represent the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy.


20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

50

100

150

200

RATE

[Hz]

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

aa ba b ca b c d

+ 6GBM NaI 8 + NaI7 NaI

(8 keV−14.3 keV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0200040006000

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

500

1000

1500

RATE

[Hz]

0

10000

20000

30000 + 6GBM NaI 8 + NaI7 NaI

(14.3 keV−260 keV)


Coun

ts/b

in

0

50000

100000

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

50

100

150

RATE

[Hz]

0

1000

2000

30001GBM BGO

(260 keV−5 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in0

5000

10000

Coun

ts/B

in

0

50

100

RATE

[Hz]

0

1000

2000LAT(All events)

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Coun

ts/B

in

0

10

20

30

RATE

[Hz]

0

20

40

60LAT(> 100 MeV)


Coun

ts/b

in

050

100

0Time since T−20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Ener

gy [M

eV]

310

410

LAT EVENTS(> 1 GeV)

Figure 7.8: Lightcurves for GRB 090926A observed by the GBM and the LAT,from lowest to highest energies. The inset panels give a view of the first 22s from the trigger time. In all cases, the bin width is 0.5s; the per-secondcounting rate is reported on the right for convenience. The time windows (a)to (d) represent the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy.


and the details of the methodology for the joint spectroscopy between NaI,

BGO and the LAT detectors is presented in appendix B. Section presents the

main results of the time-resolved but we here lay out the different possible

phenomenological effects that would lead to a high-energy ’delay’:

1. An overall increase of the normalization of the Band function which

extends to high-energy and accounts for the observed LAT emission

2. A hardening of the Band function (i.e., increase of the peak energy Epeak

and/or high-energy spectral index) which extends to high-energy and

accounts for the observed LAT emission

3. A flux increase of an extra-component at high energy (due du normal-

ization increase and/or index hardening)

4. An increase of the typical energy at which a break or curvature in the

spectrum is observed

5. Quantum gravity effects producing an energy dependent delay on the

emitted photons

Effect (5) will be described in great details in chapter 8. Of interest to

us here is the fact that this effect is not able to explain the magnitude of

this delay as seen on long bursts (on order of a few seconds). The strictest

explanation stems from the strongest constraints we were able to put on the

quantum gravity mass using GRB 090510 (the interested reader should read

section 8). This constraints do not allow such high energy delay to be of order

a a few seconds as is the case for several long bursts: GRB 080916C, GRB

090902B, GRB 090926A. A more straightforward way to convince ourselves

that quantum gravity is not the answer (at least for long bursts) is the fact

that if such delay would apply, it should be observable on all the temporal

structure of the prompt emission. GRB 090926A (see lightcurves 7.8) has an

extremely bright and sharp spike which was detected by all Fermi instruments

at different energies. It would be very hard to believe that this spike does

not have the same time of emission at the GRB site. If quantum gravity were

to operate, it should also operate on this spike which does not present any

significant ’delay’ in the LAT. The several seconds delay at the onset of long

bursts is therefore not compatible with quantum gravity effect.


Effect (4) can be investigated by detailed joint spectral analysis between

GBM and the LAT. We indeed searched for possible curvature in the prompt

spectrum of LAT GRBs. Our findings are reported in details in section 7.3.2.

In summary, GRB 090926A was the only burst for which a significant curvature

in the spectrum was observed with a cut-off energy around a few GeVs which

is much higher than the energy that would be needed to explain a lack of

emission above 100 MeV. However this does not rule out effect (4) as the

reasons for the high energy delay but we are just unable to detect it with the

level of statistics in the data. Such curvature could for example be due to

internal γ γ absorption or point to a curvature in the energy distribution

of the particles responsible for the prompt emission. We note that external

γ γ absorption through interaction with the extragalactic background light

(optical-UV) is however not a possibility as its effect starts being significant

only above 10 GeV (see section 9 for a detailed analysis )

From the detailed time-resolved spectroscopy of the 4 brightest LAT bursts,

we derived the following spectral reasons for the high-energy ’delay’:

• GRB 080916C: (2). [145]

• GRB 090510: (2) and (3). [149]

• GRB 090902B: (3). [150]

• GRB 090926A: (1) and (2). [151]

This high energy ’delay’ feature is a definite challenge to explain for any

theoretical model that aims at describing the GRB prompt emission at least

of those bright bursts. Up to now, there has been no complete and self-

coherent interpretation of this feature. We report in section 7.4.1 some possible

theoretical interpretation for this feature.

An interesting question is to determine how widespread this feature is

among the GRB population and in particular whether it only belongs to a

sub-class of GRBs (to which the 4 bright LAT bursts belong) or whether it is

a generic feature. We therefore now address the issue of faint bursts which, al-

though do not have clear detection of this feature, still seem consistent with its

presence at the level of statistics provided by the data. In the following section,

we quantitatively estimate the significance of this delay on GRB 080825C, the

first LAT detected burst.


Coun

ts/b

in0

200

400

600

Coun

ts/s

ec

0

2000

4000

6000

a b c d e

10 + NaI9GBM NaI(8 keV-260 keV)

10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Coun

ts/b

in

0

500

1000

Coun

ts/s

ec

0

1000

20001 + GBM BGO0GBM BGO

(260 keV-5 MeV)

Time since GBM Trigger (s)-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Coun

ts/b

in

0

1

2

Ener

gy [M

eV]

0100200300400500600LAT

(> 80 MeV)

Figure 7.9: Lightcurves for GRB 080825C observed by the GBM and theLAT, from lowest to highest energies. In all cases, the bin width is 0.5s; theper-second counting rate is reported on the right for convenience. The timewindows (a) to (e) represent the time selection for time resolved spectroscopy.

7.2.2 Faint burst GRB 080825C

Bright LAT bursts offer an unprecedented sample of observations where spe-

cific temporal and spectral features can be clearly identified even on single

bursts. Features are naturally much harder to detect on weaker bursts which

already barely passed the 5σ threshold for detection of their overall emission.

However, it is interesting to try to quantify the possible presence of various

features and estimate the level of consistency with what is observed on bright

bursts.

In the following sections, we estimate quantitatively a possible delay of the

high energy emission onset in GRB 080825C, a weak LAT GRB detected with

6σ confidence. The analysis used is also useful to estimate the possibility

for the high energy prompt emission to be significantly more extended than

the sub-MeV emission.

Monte-Carlo study

The NaI, BGO and LAT light curves are shown in Figure 7.9. No LAT event

is seen in coincidence with the first bright GBM peak which is reminiscent


of the high energy ’delay’ observed on bright bursts despite the low level of

statistics. The first 3 LAT events are detected in a very short time window, a

few seconds after the GBM trigger, in coincidence with the second GBM peak.

After a quiet period where no LAT events are detected up to 16 s, 4 more

events are detected within the GBM T90, and another 4 events after T90 when

the NaI/BGO emissions have faded close to background level. Interestingly

the highest energy event, with an energy of 57258 MeV, is detected at fairly

late time (T0 28 s).

In order to quantify the different features of this GRB (high energy ’delay’

and extended prompt emission), we have performed Monte-Carlo simulations

of the LAT light curve and estimated the fraction of those simulations that

reproduce these features. The LAT event distribution was produced using

Poisson statistics for a constant background rate of 0.037 Hz (the background

level was estimated using the method presented in appendix A and consistent

with a stable off source region 600 sec before the GRB trigger), an estimated

detected signal above 80 MeV of 11.7 events (13 events minus 1.3 estimated

background events) and a temporal probability distribution based on the NaI

light curve from T0 to T0 35 s. A total of 30,000 simulations were performed

with the exact same number of total LAT events (13). The probability of the

different features were computed as follow:

• high energy ’delay’: the fraction of simulated light curves where the first

event arrives later than the first actual observed photon (at T0 3.252

s).

• extended prompt emission: the fraction of simulated light curves where

the last 5 events are detected after the timing of the ninth observed event

(detected at T0 26.570 s).

The distribution of events for those two time definition is given in figure

7.10. This analysis finds weak evidence for the possible high energy delay

feature with a chance probabilities of 3.4%, and the evidence for temporally

extended emission in the LAT is more significant, with a 3.7 σ significance.

We now turn to detailed time-resolved spectroscopy that reveals further

key features significantly observed in bright LAT GRBs.


Figure 7.10: The above distributions are based on Monte-Carlo simulationsof the LAT lightcurve for GRB 080825C. The LAT event distribution wasproduced using a constant background rate of 0.037 Hz (based on the methodpresented in appendix A), an estimated detected signal above 80 MeV of 11.7events (13 events minus 1.3 estimated background events) and a temporalprobability distribution based on the NaI light curve from T0 to T0 35 s.Left panel: Time distribution for the detection of the first simulated events.Right panel: Time distribution for the detection of the 9th simulated events.Based on these distributions, we could derive the chance probability for a highenergy ’delay’ (3.4%) and extended prompt emission (3.7 σ).

7.3 Time-resolved spectroscopy of the prompt

emission

Compared to the EGRET era, the Fermi LAT increased sensitivity, more

precise energy resolution, smaller deadtime and new energy window from 10

to 300 GeV is a significicant step forward toward a better understanding of

the spectral behavior of high energy sources. A crucial aspect for GRBs is

to investigate the relationship of the high energy emission with the sub-MeV

emission which is detected onboard Fermi by the Gamm-Ray Burst Monitor

(8 keV - 40 MeV). The GBM and LAT instruments combined cover almost 7

order of magnitude in energy (8 keV Ñ 300 GeV) with unprecedented sensi-

tivity above 20 MeV. Precise time-resolved spectrosopy of GRBs in the broad

GBM/LAT energy range is key to solve many of the still unanswered questions

such as the nature of the jet content, the prevailing emission mechanisms, or

the jet bulk lorentz factor.

Because of reasons detailed in section 5, spectral studies with the LAT are

only performed above 100 MeV. Further analysis are ongoing to open the lower

part of the LAT energy range to spectral analysis. Until then, we will restrict

7.3. TIME-RESOLVED SPECTROSCOPYOF THE PROMPT EMISSION107

ourselves to this lower boundary of 100 MeV in the following analysis. We also

note that because of rapidely decreasing fluxes above 10 GeV, only a few

photons have been detected above that energy - the highest energy photon is 33

GeV - which therefore limit the LAT capability to derive spectral information

of high energy sources above these energies (this limitation can be overcome

with huge effective areas which is for example achieved with Air Cherenkov

Telescopes).

Besides few cases detected by EGRET with low statistics, the spectral be-

havior of GRBs in the MeV-GeV range was largely unknown before Fermi.

We here expose a comprehensive overview of the prompt emission spectrum

of the brightest GRB bursts detected by the LAT instrument onboard Fermi.

Weak bursts detected by the LAT provide us much less information on the

spectral distribution in the MeV-GeV range due to the lack of statistics. Pop-

ulation study might lead to interesting results but require a substantial sample

and this work is therefore left for future publications. We therefore mostly con-

centrate on the analysis of bright LAT GRBs in this section.

In this chapter, we will present the various analysis techniques and results of

the joint GBM/LAT spectrosopy on GRBs up to January 2010. The analysis

techniques and tools used by the LAT team for fitting and spectral model

comparison are presented in appendix B. Sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 will present

the results of our searches for possible departure from the typical Band function

which was found to be a good phenomenological model to represent the sub-

MeV observations in the BATSE era [8]. Section 7.3.1 look for power-law

components emerging at high energy and section 7.3.2 look for curvature of

the spectrum at high energy. Finally section 7.3.3 summarize our investigation

of systematic uncertainties affecting our spectral results.

7.3.1 High energy additional component

The BATSE era has revealed that a phenomenological model known as the

’Band function’ provides an excellent fit to the data in the keV-MeV range [8]

- see [35] and [115] however for possible departure from this phenomenological

model at low energy. This model is usually interpreted as the synchrotron emis-

sion from an energetic electron population energized through internal shocks,

although this explanations faces some critical isssues (line of death problem


!ne$%y'()e*+1- 21- 31- 41- 11- 21-

3s+

2'()e*3c6

!7!

1

1-

21-

31-

a

9c

:

e

;a<='->-'s'!'2>?'s'(Ban:+

;9<='2>?'s'!'4>?'s'(Ban:+

;c<='4>?'!'12>A's'(Ban:+

;:<='12>A'!'21>2's'(Ban:+

;e<='21>2's'!'31>1's'(BCDe$!EaD+

Figure 7.11: Time resolved νFν spectra for GRB 080825C in time bin (a),(b), (c), (d) and (e) as given in figure 7.9

[9]). Another possibility is a thermal origin at the photosphere with an under-

lying power-law component [115] although the physical origin of this second

component is unclear at the present time. The detection of an additional

component on top of the underlying sub-MeV component would reveal the

presence of a new emission at high energy which would be a very valuable clue

to derive information on the particle content of the GRB jet as well as the

dominant emission mechanisms taking place in various energy regime.

An additional component at high energy up to 200 MeV was found in one

EGRET burst: GRB 941017 [62]. We naturally searched for such component in

the LAT bursts. The lack of statistics of most LAT detected bursts prevented

us to distinguish between various spectral models so the fact that no signs

of departure from a Band function is found in these weak bursts should not

be seen as a proof of absence of additional feature but just as a consequence

of low statistics in the LAT energy range. It is therefore not a surprise that

an additional component was not found significant in any of the faint LAT

bursts. An example of such low statistics burst is GRB 080825C. Fig. 7.11

represents the time-resolved νFν spectra in the different time bin shown in

figure 7.9 (note that a simple power-law is preferred in the last time bin due

the very low statistics in the GBM and LAT bands). We now turn to bright

LAT GRBs.


GRB 080916C

The first bright burst detected in the LAT was GRB 080916C (figure 7.5)

which had 145 events above 100 MeV associated with the burst during the first

100 seconds after trigger. This allowed a detailed time-resolved spectroscopy

to be performed in 5 different time windows (shown in figure 7.5). In this

burst, we find that the spectra of all five time intervals as well as the time

integrated spectrum are well fit by the empirical Band function all the way

up to the highest energy observed ( 13 GeV). The right panel of figure 7.12

shows the spectral models obtained from the fits of the data in each of the five

time intervals and the left panel shows the evolution over time of the Band

function parameters with their 1σ statistical uncertainties. The model curves

are shown in νFν units in which a flat spectrum would indicate equal energy

per decade of photon energy, and the changing shapes show the evolution of

the spectrum over time. One can for example notice the significant hardening

of the spectrum from time bin (a) to time bin (b) - higher Epeak and harder

β index - which is the spectral view of the high energy ’delay’ clearly visible

on the GBM and LAT lightcurve and which was mentioned in the previous

section.

We searched extensively for deviations from the Band function in this

bursts. In time bin (d) there are three photons above 6 GeV. We tried model-

ing these high-energy photons with a power law as an additional high-energy

spectral component. Starting from the null hypothesis that the data originate

from a simple Band GRB function, the improvement in likelihood obtained by

adding the additional power-law component indicates 1% probability for this

time bin that we have no additional spectral component; with 5 time bins,

this is not strong evidence for any additional component. The LAT sensitivity

to higher-energy photons may be reduced at z 4.2 through absorption by

Extragalactic Background Light (EBL). Because the effect of various models

ranges widely, from leaving the single time bin probability of an extra compo-

nent unchanged to decreasing the plausibility of its absence to 0.03 %, we do

not use EBL absorption effects in our estimation of its significance.

GRB 090510


T – T0 [s]

E pea

k [ke

V]

Energy (keV)10 210 310 410 510 610 710

/s)

2

(keV

/cm

! F!

10

210

310

a

b

c

d

e

Figure 7.12: Left: Fit parameters for the Band function α, β and Epeak as afunction of time. Right: The model spectra for all five time intervals. Thecurves end at the energy of the highest-energy photon observed in each timeinterval.

GRB 090510 (figure 7.6) is an extremely intense short burst detected by the

LAT instrument. Its count spectra and νFν spectrum (best fit models for the

time-integrated and time-resolved spectrum) can be seen in figure 7.13. The

peak energy of the Band component for the time-integrated data is Epeak 3.9 0.3 MeV, which is the highest peak energy ever measured in a GRB

time-integrated spectrum. The addition of a power-law component with a

photon index of 1.62 0.03 was found to improves the spectral fit with a

Test-Statistics of 36.1.

However, we note that strictly speaking Wilk’s theorem does not apply as

the null-hypothesis (Band function) and the alternative model (Band function

+ Power Law) are not fully nested since the null-hypothesis model can be re-

trieved by simply fixing the power-law normalization to the null value without

any constraints on the power-law index. In order to convince ourselves of the

reality of this additional spectral component, we performed simulations of the

null-hypothesis (Band function with best fit parameters) to evaluate the distri-

bution of the Test-Statistics (TS) under this hypothesis. The TS distribution

is shown on figure 7.14 and is close to a chi-square distribution with one degree


of freedom (blue dashed curve) as Wilks’ theorem would predict. However, we

find that a chi-square with two degrees of freedom (red dashed curve) does not

underestimate the tail of the distribution which is what matters for the TS

conversion into a significance. We therefore use this χ2p2dofq parametrization in

order to convert the TS value into a significance for the additional component.

TS 36.1 therefore corresponds to a 5.5σ discovery of an additional compo-

nent. This is the first short burst for which such a hard power-law component

has been observed. Top panel of figure 7.13 shows the counts spectrum of the

time-integrated data and the ’Band function+power-law’ best fit. Bottom of

figure 7.13 (top panel), we plot this composite model for the time-integrated

νFν spectrum along with the separate contributions for each component.

For the time-resolved spectroscopy, we initially considered the data parti-

tioned into 0.1 s time bins, starting at T00.5 s. However, for the analyses we

present here, we have combined the data in the T00.6 s to T0 + 0.8 s interval

into a single bin in order to have sufficient counts at energies ¡ 100 MeV to

constrain the fit of the LAT data. The Band component undergoes substan-

tial evolution over the course of the prompt phase, starting out relatively soft

with Epeak 3 MeV, evolving to a very hard spectrum with Epeak 5 MeV,

accompanied by the appearance of the power-law component at ¡ 100 MeV,

and then becoming softer again with Epeak 2 MeV. The extra power-law

component hints at a similar sort of soft-hard-soft evolution, but these spec-

tral changes do not appear to be commensurate with the Band component

evolution - see bottom of figure 7.13 (bottom panel).

GRB 090902B

GRB 090902B (figure 7.7) is a long burst where the presence of an addi-

tional power-law component on top of the Band function was clearly detected

in the time-integrated spectrum. This power-law component signicantly im-

proves the fit between 8 keV and 200 GeV both in the time-integrated spectrum

and in the individual time intervals where there are sufficient statistics. It is

also required when considering only the GBM data (8 keV - 40 MeV) for the

time-integrated spectrum, as its inclusion causes an improvement of 1000 in

the Test-Statistic over the Band function alone. When NaI data below 50

keV are excluded, a power-law component can be neglected in the GBM-only


Figure 7.13: Top: Counts spectrum for the time-integrated (T0 0.5, T0 1.0s) data. The Band + power-law model has been fit to these data. Middle:The best-fit Band + power-law model for the time-integrated data plotted asa νFν spectrum. The two components are plotted separately and the sum isplotted as the heavy line. The 1 σ error contours derived from the errorson the fit parameters are also shown. Bottom: The νFν model spectra (and1 σ error time resolved spectra in time bin (a), (b), (c) and (d).


Figure 7.14: TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (Band func-tion) for the time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090510

fits. We conclude that this power-law component contributes a signicant part

of the emission both at low ( 50 keV) and high (¡ 100 MeV) energies. Figure

7.15 shows the unfolded νFν spectrum for a Band function with a power-law

component fit to the data for interval (b) when the low energy excess is most

significant.

Spectral evolution is apparent in the Band function component from the

changing Epeak values throughout the burst, while β remains soft until interval

(e) when it hardens signicantly. β is similarly hard in interval (f), after which

the Band function component is no longer detected. The hardening of β is

accompanied by an apparent hardening of the power-law index, Γ, which until

interval (e) does not exhibit much variation. However, this is not definitive

since the flux is too low to constrain Γ in intervals e and f separately. A spectral

fit of the sum of these two intervals confirms the presence of both a harder

β and a harder Γ, with a clear statistical preference for the inclusion of the

power-law component. An equally good fit is obtained in the combined (e) +

(f) interval if this power-law has an exponential cut-off at high energies, with

the preferred cut-off energy lying above 2 GeV. Finally, we note that in interval

(b), a marginally better fit is achieved using a model with the additional

power-law component having an exponential cut-off at high energies. The

improvement is at the 3σ level and indicates weak evidence for a cutoff in the


Figure 7.15: Best fit model for time interval (b) (seee fig. 7.7). 1σ error barswith νFν spectrum are plotted in shaded grey. The extension of the ¡ 100MeV power-law component to the lowest energies ( 50 keV) can be clearlyseen.

second component, placing a lower limit on the cutoff energy in this interval

of about 1 GeV (we further discuss spectral curvature in section 7.3.2).

We note that the power-law component in GRB 090510 appeared to extrap-

olate to energies well below Epeak and dominates the Band function emission

below 20 keV, similarly to the behavior seen in GRB 090902B. However this

feature was observed with a much lower significance which is not enough to

claim a clear detection on this burst alone.

GRB 090926A

GRB 090926A is another long burst with a significant additional compo-

nent observed. This GRB also displayed spectral curvature at high energy as

well so we are treating this burst in details in the next section which address

exactly this topic.

in the end, all bright LAT GRBs (3 long and 1 short) displayed a significant

additional component at high energy at the exception of GRB 080916C which

only has a marginal evidence for the presence of such component. It would be

tempting to extrapolate this behavior to the whole GRB population however

one has to keep in mind that we are only seeing a biased sup-sample of the GRB

sample (hard and bright bursts). In section 7.1 (see figure 7.3 in particular), it


was shown that the current LAT detection rate is in agreement with a simple

extrapolation of the sub-MeV behavior of GRBs. This suggests that a fair

fraction of the bursts do not display similar additional component as seen in

the bright bursts as it would significantly enhance the LAT detection rate

compare to predictions from a simple extrapolation of the sub-MeV spectra.

More detailed analyses would be needed to further investigate this behavior

at the population level.

7.3.2 Spectral curvature

Spectral curvature in the prompt emission of GRBs could occur for a multiple

of reasons: intrinsic γγ opacities, Extragalactic Background Light absorption

(see section 9), roll-over of the energy distribution of the emitting particles,

inverse compton scattering entering the Klein-Nishina regime. The fact that

the high energy index of many GRBs is harder than -2 is an indication that

such curvature in the spectrum needs to occur at a certain energy otherwise

the emission would have an infinite amount of energy. Such curvature is also

expected for a dense plasma as it becomes optically thick at high energy due

to γ γ pair annihilation.

The fact that such energy cutoff has not been observed in the pre-Fermi era

has led to the conclusion that the GRB jet must be ultra-relativistic. Indeed,

the non-detection of any spectral signature sign of absorption effect in gamma-

ray bursts can be used to place lower limits on the bulk Lorentz factor. We

will address this topic in section 8. At the same time, the detection of such

curvature would be an important discovery to understand the physics at the

source. GRB 090926A was the first GRB with a clear detection of a spectral

curvature at high energy while GRB 080825C is a much more controversial

case. We describe our findings on these sources below.

GRB 090926A

GRB 090926A is a long burst and its lightcurve in different energy bands

is presented in figure 7.8. Based on the behavior of the light curve, we chose

the following time region to perform time-integrated spectroscopy: T0 3.3s -

T021.6s. We jointly fitted a canonical Band function for all time regions and


all data sets. The observed spectra are roughly described by the Band function;

however, large residuals from the fit can be seen in figure 7.17. Therefore,

we added a power-law component, as in the case of GRB 090902 (Band +

PL). The increase of 107.3 in Test-Statistics (with 2 degrees-of-freedom) is a

significant improvement of the fit equivalent to a 10 σ level; the power-law

photon index is λ=1.80 0.01. This is now the third case of a LAT detection

of an extra component in GRB spectra. The power-law component dominates

below 50 keV and above 10 MeV, similarly to GRB 090902B. Nevertheless,

the residuals in the LAT data still remain at high energies (see figure 7.17).

We then fitted the GBM/LAT spectra with the combinations of the Band

function and a power-law model with and without a high energy break. For

the latter, we tried both a power-law with exponential cutoff and a broken

power-law. The power-law with exponential cutoff (CUTPL) is modeled as in

equation 7.3.2, with A the normalization in units of photons s1 cm2 keV1,

Epiv a pivot energy fixed to 1 GeV, EF a folding energy and λ is the power-law

photon index.

fpEq A

E

Epiv

λexp

E

EF

(7.0)

The results are summarized in table 7.2 and the best fit count spectra and

residuals are shown on figure 7.17 for the best model. The folding energy is

EF 1.410.220.42 rstat.s 0.30 rsyst.s GeV, while the power-law photon index

below the cutoff energy is λ 1.720.100.02 rstat.s 0.01 rsyst.s, which is a

bit harder than in the (Band+PL) case. The systematic uncertainties quoted

here have been derived using the bracketing instrument response functions,

as described in detail in section 7.3.3. The parameters of the Band function

change little from one fit to another. The C-STAT value for this model is an

improvement of 39.5 compared to the Band+PL model (a detailed discussion

is provided below on the exact significance of such improvement)

The fit of the data with the Band plus broken power-law (Band+BPL)

model has a significance very close to that of the (Band+CUTPL) model

— the ∆(C-STAT) between the two models is only 6 — so that we cannot

distinguish between them although each of these functions lead to a different

interpretation of the data (e.g., see section 7.4.1, and [172, 173]). The broken

power-law (BPL) is modeled as


Figure 7.16: Best fit model for the time-integrated data of GRB 090926A. 2σerror bars with νFν spectrum are plotted in shaded grey for the Band+CUTPLmodel while only the best fit model is plotted for the Band+BPL model.

fpEq

$'&'%

A

EEpiv

λlfor E ¤ Ebreak

AEbreak

Epiv

λl E

Ebreak

λhfor E ¡ Ebreak

,/./- (7.0)

where λl and λh are lower and higher power-law photon indices, Epiv is a pivot

energy fixed to 1 GeV, Ebreak is the break energy. For this (Band+BPL) fit, we

found a break energy Ebreak 2196556 MeV and a photon index above Ebreak of

λh 2.470.140.17. The parameters of the Band function change little from one

fit to another. We show in figure 7.16 shows the time-integrated νFν spectrum

for the two best fit: Band + CUTPL and Band +BPL.

We tested the significance of the cutoff via a model comparison test, by

differencing C-STAT for the two models, (Band+PL) and (Band+CUTPL).

This is a likelihood ratio test (LRT) since C-STAT is equal to twice the log of

the likelihood. It is conventional in astrophysics to calculate the significance

of the test by using the χ2 distribution to convert the LRT value, or C-STAT

difference in this case, to a probability. However, certain assumptions are


required for the validity of this calculation. For the highest reliability we con-

ducted simulations, creating 2104 random realizations of the null-hypothesis

(parameters of (Band+PL) fixed at the best fit values found in the data) and

fitting with both models, (Band+PL) and (Band+CUTPL). We tested for the

presence of a statistical-fluctuation exponential cutoff in the simulations by

fitting the simulated counts data with both models and differencing the C-

STAT values. In 2 104 simulations the largest C-STAT difference obtained

was 16.7, which is much smaller than the value of 39.5 obtained with the ac-

tual data (last line of table 7.2). We therefore place a firm upper-limit on the

probability that the exponential cutoff is a chance probability of 5 105, for

a significance that the cutoff is real of at least 99.995% (Gaussian equivalent

4.05σ).

According to Wilks’ Theorem, the ∆(C-STAT) values should be asymptot-

ically distributed according to χ2 of one degree of freedom. The ∆(C-STAT)

distribution plotted in figure 7.18 from the simulation exhibited a slight excess

at large values – perhaps the asymptotic distribution has not been reached for

those values. Consequently we do not evaluate the significance according to

the conventional procedure of using the observed ∆(C-STAT) value of 39.5

and the χ2 distribution. The number of simulations to determine the signifi-

cance of the cutoff rather than a limit is prohibitive. The large gap between

the largest ∆(C-STAT) value obtained in the simulations, 16.7, and the value

of 39.5 for the actual data, suggests that the significance is much better than

99.995%. For the 4 different sets of instrument response functions, we always

found the ∆(C-STAT) to be greater than 32. The significance of the spectral

cutoff will be hereafter quoted as ¡ 4σ.

Using the fit results for the best model (Band+CUTPL), we estimate a

fluence of 2.070.04 104 erg cm2 (10 keV-10 GeV) from T0 3.3 s to T0 21.6 s. These data give an isotropic energy Eγ,iso = 2.24 0.04 1054 erg,

comparable to that of GRB 090902B.

GRB 080825C

GRB 080825C (see lightcurve in figure 7.9) is the first GRB significantly

detected by the LAT instrument. Following a similar procedure as described

for GRB 090926A, we found an exponential cutoff in time bin (a) with a


Figure 7.17: Folded and unfolded spectrum for the Band, Band+PL andBand+CUTPL in time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090926


Table 7.2: Summary of GBM/LAT joint spectral fitting between T03.3 s andT0 21.6 s. The flux range covered by both instruments is 10 keV – 10 GeV.

Fitting model Band Band+PL Band+CUTPL

Band function

A (γ cm2 s1 keV1) 0.176 +/- 0.002 0.173 +/- 0.003 0.170 0.0010.004

Epeak (keV) 249 +/- 3 256 +/- 4 259 82

α (index 1) -0.71 +/- 0.01 -0.62 +/- 0.03 -0.64 0.020.09

β (index 2) -2.30 +/- 0.01 -2.59 0.040.05 -2.63 0.02

0.12

Power-law

A (1010 γ cm2 s1 keV1) - 3.17 0.350.33 5.80 0.81

0.60

λ (index) - -1.79 +/- 0.02 -1.72 0.100.02

Epiv - 1 GeV (fixed) 1 GeV (fixed)

High-energy cutoff

EF (GeV) - - 1.41 0.220.42

Effective area correctionBGO/LAT (back) 0.79 (fixed) 0.79 (fixed) 0.79 (fixed)

Flux (γ cm2 s1) 42.2+/-0.1 43.5+/-0.3 43.3+/-0.2Flux (105 erg cm2 s1) 1.18+/-0.01 1.15+/-0.02 1.13+/-0.02

C-STAT / DOF 1395.1 / 579 1287.8 / 577 1247.3 / 576

TS0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

# o

f si

mu

lati

on

s

1

10

210

310TS cutoff

chi-square(1)

chi-square(2)

chi-square(3)

TS distribution

Figure 7.18: TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (BAND+PL)on the time-integrated spectrum of GRB 090926A


Figure 7.19: TS distribution from simulation of null-hypothesis (Band func-tion) on time bin (a) of GRB 080825C

significance of 4.3σ and with a cutoff energy of Ecutoff 1.771.590.56 MeV (with

following Band function parameters: α 0.57, β 1.64, Epeak 211

keV). We performed Monte-Carlo simulation similar to what was done with

GRB 090926A. The Test-Statistics distribution is plotted in figure 7.19 and a

χ21dof function was found to be a good fit to this distribution and was therefore

used to derive the above significance. We investigated the dependence of this

significance with the estimated systematics of the various instruments (see

next section) and found the strongest effect to be a 15% variation in the

BGO effective area which can bring the significance down to 3.7σ. With 5

time bins, this is not strong enough to claim the existence of an exponential

cutoff.

7.3.3 Investigation of systematics

Accurate estimate of the uncertainties in a measurement is as important as the

measurement itself. Statistical uncertainties are estimated using appropriate

statistical techniques based on the poissonian nature of the background and

signal measured. Any other sources of uncertainty are refered to as ’systematic’

uncertainties and there estimate is usually less straightforward. Systematic

errors mostly come from uncertainties in the performance of the instrument,

as well as inaccurate or even wrong assumptions made during your analysis.

Therefore a reliable estimation of systematic uncertainties can be achieved via


an honest evaluation of the degree of knowledge of the instrument used and of

the assumptions made throughout the study. Once a list of all the possible un-

certainties (besides statistical uncertainties) have been established, one needs

to estimate how these uncertainties propagate to the specific measurement

that was made. This is usually done by performing the exact same analysis

with different instrument description or assumptions, both slightly modified

by an amount deemed ’reasonable’. ’Reasonable’ here means that is not very

unlikely and 1σ uncertainties are usually chosen. Each systematic effect is

usually investigated separately as even for reasonable amount of systematic

uncertainties, the number of combination to analyze rapidly becomes very

large and difficult to carry out since the automatization of these investigations

is usually not possible.

We list below the instrumental uncertainties that were investigated during

the Fermi GRB analysis as well as a ’reasonable’ estimate of the level of each

of these uncdertainties:

• LAT effective area: the LAT team performed detailed studies of the

systematic uncertainties associated with the instrument effective area.

This uncertainty was found to be strongly energy dependent. Because

a positive fluctuation of the effective area at low and high energy would

have a different effect on the spectral index of a source than a positive

fluctuation at low energy and a negative fluctuation at high energy, it

was decided to create a set of 4 modified Instrument Response Functions

which encompass the worst case scenarios in terms of overall normaliza-

tion and slope of the effective area corrections. Systematics on the LAT

effective area have been derived from a study of the Vela pulsar and

Earth albedo photons because it is possible in both cases to extract a

γ-ray sample extremely pure. Using this sample, the uncertainties on

the LAT effective area have been found to be: 10% below 100 MeV, 5%

around 1 GeV and 20% above 10 GeV.

• Pile-up events: While examining downlinked events it became clear

that some unexpected interactions between background and γ-ray events

happened, due to the time evolution of the energy deposition in the de-

tector, the timing of the electronics and of the trigger system, and the

details of the reconstruction analysis. This was not observed in Monte


Carlo simulation as each event is generated independently and interac-

tions between subsequent events is not possible. This caused a decrease

in the LAT efficiency, as some valid events are rejected due to pile-up

signals. Furthermore the decrease in efficiency is correlated with the

instrument raw trigger rate. Corrections were applied to the reconstruc-

tion and event analysis routines to recover this loss in order to to use the

Monte Carlo simulation to correctly estimate the LAT performance and

reduce the systematics affecting our science analysis. However some sys-

tematics remain especially the dependence with trigger rate mentioned

above and we computed its effect into all our GRB studies.

• LAT energy scale: the uncertainty in energy measurement for the LAT

is estimated to be of the order of 5% from our Monte-Carlo simulations.

Since this is not included into the description of the LAT instrument

while performing GRB analysis, we properly investigated its effect on

our measurements.

• NaI & BGO effective area: We adopted a 10% uncertainty in the NaI

and BGO effective area (both overall normalization and slope) [provided

by the GBM team].

• NaI & BGO background estimation: we also considered the uncer-

tainty in the choice of off-timing sample for NaI and BGO background

subtraction and found the corresponding systematics to be negligible

[provided by the GBM team].

We used GRB 080825C as a test case to evaluate how the various system-

atic uncertainties propagate to the Band spectral parameters. In each time

bin, the error values on the spectral parameters are found to be similar to or

smaller than the statistical uncertainties, except for the case of time bin (a)

and (b) where the systematics on Epeak and the normalization are found to be

about two times and three times larger, respectively. Table 7.3 reports the sys-

tematics found for each parameter of the time-integrated best fit Band function

of GRB 080825C as well as the predominant systematic effects. We note that

similar trends for the systematic uncertainties were found for GRB 080916C,

which had many more LAT events than GRB 080825C.


Norm α β Epeak (keV)

systematic er-ror

15% 0.03 0.03 8

predominantsystematics

NaI eff.area

NaI eff.area

BGO eff.area

NaI & BGOeff. area

Table 7.3: Systematic uncertainties derived for GRB 080825C as well as thepredominant effect for each spectral parameter of the time-integrated best fitBand function.

7.4 Discussion

7.4.1 Possible theoretical interpretations of LAT GRB

features

Fermi instruments are discovering multiple new features so far unobserved

in the GRB prompt emission and all these features are important clues to

unravel the underlying physics behind the GRB prompt emission. We now

discuss some of the possible theoretical interpretations of the GRB features

observed by Fermi.

A delayed onset of the high-energy emission (¡ 100 MeV) relative to the

low energy emission ( 1 MeV) appears to be a very common feature in LAT

GRBs. It clearly appears in all 4 of the particularly bright LAT GRBs, while in

dimmer LAT GRBs it is often inconclusive due to poor photon statistics near

the onset time (GRB 090217 being the only case where the data is inconsistent

with such feature [147]). Besides, the time delay appears to scale with the

duration of the GRB (e.g., it is several seconds in the long GRBs 080916C and

090902B, while being only 0.10.2 s in the short GRBs 090510). A leptonic

scenario producing the high-energy emission via inverse Compton scattering

would have a hard time to produce the delayed onset on a timescale larger

than that of individual spikes in the lightcurve (a delay up to this timescale

might be due to the build-up of the seed synchrotron photon field in the

emitting region over the dynamical time). A hadronic model could explain

the late onset with the time it takes to accelerate protons (or heavier ions)

to very high energies (at which they loose a considerable fraction of their

energy on a dynamical time, e.g. via proton synchrotron [169], in order to

7.4. DISCUSSION 125

obtain a reasonable radiative efficiency). If the observed high-energy emission

(and in particular the distinct high-energy spectral component) also involves

pair cascades (e.g. inverse-Compton emission by secondary e pairs [154]

produced through cascades initiated by photo-hadronic interactions) then it

might take some additional time for such cascades to develop. However, this

requires the high-energy emission to originate from the same physical region

for a time of order of the high energy delay which is much larger than the

typical variability time scale. The sharp spikes present in the light curves

are a definitive challenge as it is hard to make the same emission region turn

on and off so abruptly. Moreover, the fact that the first spikes are missing

while later spikes coincides is problematic in this picture as we would expect

a similar ’high energy delay’ for those later spikes which is not observed.

Only 3 LAT GRBs so far have shown clear (¡ 5σ) evidence for a distinct

spectral component. However, these GRBs are the 3 brightest in the LAT

range, while the next brightest GRB in the LAT (GRB 080916C) showed a

hint for an excess at high energies. This suggests that such a distinct high-

energy spectral component is probably very common, although its clear detec-

tion is only possible in particularly bright LAT GRBs since a large number of

LAT photons is needed in order to detect it with ¡ 5σ significance. The dis-

tinct spectral component is usually well fit by a hard powerlaw that dominates

at high energies. In a leptonic scenario, the high-energy spectral component

might be inverse-Compton emission, and in particular synchrotron-self Comp-

ton (SSC) if the usual Band component is synchrotron. However, the gradual

increase in the photon index of the high-energy power-law component is not

naturally expected in such a model, and the fact that it is different than the

Band low-energy photon index as well as the excess flux (above the Band com-

ponent) at low energies are hard to account for in this type of model. GRB

090902B shows for the first time clear evidence of excess emission both at

low energies ( À 50 keV) and at high energies (¡ 100 MeV), while the Band

function alone fits data at intermediate energies adequately (GRB 090510 also

shows a hint of such excess at low energy). These excesses are well-fit by

a single power-law component suggesting a common origin. This power-law

component accounts for 24% of the total uence in the 10 keV - 10 GeV range,

and its photon index is hard, with a value 1.9 throughout most of the


prompt phase. Such a hard component producing the observed excess at low

energies is difficult to explain in the context of leptonic models by the usual

synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) mechanisms. In the simplest versions of these

models, the peak of the SSC emission is expected to have a much higher energy

than the synchrotron peak at MeV energies, and the SSC component has a soft

tail that is well below the synchrotron flux at lower energies and so would not

produce excess emission below 50 keV. However, theoretical extensions which

include additional processes such as the photospheric component are promising

and might lead to a resolution of this issue in the leptonic scenario [155, 153].

Hadronic models, either in the form of proton synchrotron radiation [169] or

photohadronic interactions [150, 154], can produce a hard component with a

similar low energy excess via direct and cascade radiation (e.g., synchrotron

emission by secondary pairs at low energies). However, the total energy release

in hadronic models would exceed the observed gamma-ray energy significantly

and may pose a challenge for the total energy budget. For GRB 090510 a

hadronic model requires a total isotropic equivalent energy ¡ 102 times larger

than that observed in gamma-rays [154], which is a serious challenge for the

progenitor of this short GRB. Collimation into a narrow jet may alleviate the

energy requirements, since the actual energy release can be smaller by a jet

beaming factor ¡ 1Γ20 from the apparent isotropic value, where Γ0 is the bulk

Lorentz factor of the fireball. A further difficulty for hadronic models is the

gradual increase in β which is not naturally expected, though it might be mim-

icked by a time-evolution of a high-energy Band-like spectral component [169].

Altogether, both leptonic and hadronic models still face many challenges, and

do not yet naturally account for all of the Fermi observations.

Finally, the delayed extra component could be emitted from a forward

shock that propagates into the external medium [165, 166], while the Band

component would have a separate origin. The delay timescale of the extra

spectral component would correspond to the time needed for the forward shock

to sweep up material and brighten [167, 168, 169]. The forward shock radius

in an external shock model is Rf Γ2fcTdurp1 zq, where Γf is the Lorentz

factor of the forward shock and Tdur is the duration of the burst. One major

issue with such model though is to explain the rapid variability observed in

GRB light curves at various energies. Indeed the external medium needs to

7.4. DISCUSSION 127

be clumpy on length scale Γfc∆T p1 zq 1012pΓf103qp∆T 102 s) cm

[170, 171]. This is based on interactions between a very thin shell, prior to the

onset of the self-similar expansion phase, and the external medium with very

small scale clumps. If the extra component is synchrotron emission from the

forward shock, then the synchronization of the pulse peak times of the Band

and extra component requires an explanation. Another possibility is that the

extra component arises from inverse Compton (IC) scattering of the radiation

of the Band component by the high-energy electrons in the forward shock.

Another remarkable feature is the spectral break (or cutoff) of the extra-

component that has been measured in GRB 090926A for the whole time range

of the prompt emission and for time interval (c) with a high significance. This

cutoff may be due to pair production (γγ Ñ ee) within the emitting region,

although we cannot rule out the possibility that there is an intrinsic spectral

break related to the energy distribution of the emitting particles or the emission

mechanism (e.g., IC scattering with Klein-Nishina effect). The absorption on

the extragalactic background light (EBL) cannot cause this spectral feature

since the opacity at the observed break energy for the redshift of GRB 090926A

is very small for practically all EBL models. If one presumes that this spectral

break is due to pair production attenuation, one can get a direct measurement

of the bulk Lorentz factor. Although the instantaneous emission from a thin

shell exhibits a photon spectrum like f9EλexppτγγpEqq, the shape of the

time-averaged spectrum of a single pulse may depend on the details of the

emission mechanism [172, 173] which performed a fully time-dependent and

self-consistent semi-analytic calculation featuring emission from a very thin

spherical shell over a finite range of radii). Using the former description, we

get a bulk Lorentz factor of Γ 700, when the more elaborate time-dependent

model gives Γ 200. The motivation to provide both estimation is that in

some models the high-energy photons are expected to be emitted from the

bulk of the shocked region, rather than from a thin cooling layer behind the

shock front, in which case such an intermediate value of the opacity might be

expected (see [151] for further explanations). We now turn to the constraints

that could be set using the highest energy emission observed during the prompt

emission of other LAT GRBs.


7.4.2 Constraints on the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet

Short time scale variability and brightness (isotropic equivalent luminosities:

L 1050 1053 erg.s1) of GRBs are strong evidence of the ultra-relativistic

nature of the outflow where the γ-ray emission is produced (bulk lorentz factor

Γ ¡¡ 1). Indeed without such relativistic corrections, the plasma would have

huge optical depth to pair production (γγ Ñ ee), which would thermalize

the spectrum and thus be at odds with the observed non-thermal spectrum

This compactness argument has been used to derive lower-limits, Γmin, on the

value of Γ, which were typically 102 and in some cases as high as a few

hundred (see [40] and references therein). However, the photons that provided

the opacity for these limits were well above the observed energy range, so

there was no direct evidence that they actually existed in the first place. With

Fermi, however, we adopt a more conservative approach of relying only on

photons within the observed energy range.

Assuming the highest energy observed from a GRB is Emax and that this

highest energy photon interacts with a powerlaw component fpEq A Eβ

[photons/cm2/keV] (might it be the high energy additional component or the

high energy tail of the Band function), the total photon number above E0 is

given by:

Ntot 4πdLpzq2p1 zq2

» 8E0

dEfpEq 4πdLpzq2fpE0qp1 zq2pβ 1qE0

where dLpzq is the luminosity distance. Defining the emission radius R and

the shell width in the comoving frame W 1, the shell volume becomes 4πR2W 1.

Then, we compute the photon distribution in the shell rest frame:

n1γpE 1q dLpzq

R

2 ΓfpE0qp1 zq3W 1

E 1

E 10

β, [photons/cm3/keV]

for E 1 ¡ E 10, where E 1

0 p1 zqE0Γ. We consider photons of energy

E 1max p1 zqEmaxΓ. The photoabsorption optical depth of high energy

γ-rays from lower energy photons emitted cospatially in the shell is given by

τγγpE 1maxq

»dΩ

» 8E1

0

dE 1n1γpE 1q4π

σγγpE 1max, E

1, θ1qp1 cospθ1qqW 1

7.4. DISCUSSION 129

where θ1 is the incident angle. The absorption cross section is

σγγpyq σTgpyq, gpyq 3

16p1 y2qrp3 y4qln1 y

1 y 2yp2 y2qs

where y2 1 2pmec2q2rE 1

maxE1p1 cospθ1qqs. Then we obtain

τγγpE 1maxq σT

dLpzqR

2 ΓE 10fpE0q

p1 zq3E 1

maxE10

m2ec

4

β1

F pβq

where the dimensionless function F pβq 41β

³10dyp1 y2qβ2gpyqy 0.1

for 2.0 ¡ β ¡ 2.3[271]. Adopting R c∆tΓ2p1 zq,

τγγpEmaxq σT

dLpzqc∆T

2

E0fpE0qp1 zq2pβ1qΓ2pβ1qEmaxE0

m2ec

4

β1

F pβq

The fact that the high energy spectrum shows no cutoff implies that the

γγ optical depth of the maximum observed photon is τγγpEmaxq 1. This

allows the minimum Lorentz factor to be estimated by

Γ ¡ Γmin σT

dLpzqc∆T

2

E0fpE0qF pβq 1

2p1βq p1 zqβ11β

EmaxE0

m2ec

4

β12pβ1q

The main uncertainty in deriving Γmin is usually the exact choice for the

variability time. Other uncertainties arise from those on the spectral fit param-

eters, or on the degree of space-time overlap between the high-energy photon

and lower energy target photons, in cases where there is more than one spectral

component without conclusive temporal correlation between their respective

light curves. Finally, the fact that our limits rely on a single high-energy pho-

ton also induces an uncertainty, as it might still escape from an optical depth

of up to a few. However, in most cases the second or third highest-energy pho-

tons help to relax the effect this has on Γmin (as the probability that multiple

photons escape from τγγ ¡ 1 rapidly decreases with the number of photons).

Following the above recipe, we have derived Γmin values for three of the

brightest LAT GRBs: Γmin 900 for GRB 080916C [145], Γmin 1200 for

GRB 090510 [149], and Γmin 1000 for GRB 090902B [150]. This shows that


Figure 7.20: Lower limit on the bulk Lorentz factor using GRB 080916C,GRB 090510, GRB 090902B. The energy of the highest energy photon clearlyassociated with the burst and the time variability tν used is indicated foreach GRB. We note that more realistic computations [173], which account forgeometrical and dynamical effects, can lead to smaller opacities and thus tosmaller lower limits (by a factor of 3) on Γ.

short GRBs (GRB 090510) seem to be as highly relativistic as long GRBs

(GRB 080916C and GRB 090902B). Figure 7.20 shows these limits as a func-

tion of the different redshifts measured for these bursts. Since our highest

values of Γmin are derived for the brightest LAT GRBs, they are susceptible

to strong selection effects. It might be that GRBs with higher Γ tend to be

brighter in the LAT energy range (e.g. by avoiding intrinsic pair production

[168]). We also note that more realistic computations [173], which account for

geometrical and dynamical effects, can lead to smaller opacities and thus to

smaller lower limits (by a factor of 3) on Γ.

Chapter 8

Limits on Lorentz Invariance

Violation

A cornerstone of Einsteins theory of special relativity is the concept of Lorentz

invariance - the postulate that all observers measure exactly the same speed

of light in vacuum, independent of photon-energy. While special relativity

does not introduce any fundamental length or energy scales, modern quantum

field theory requires several fundamental constants, one of which is the Planck

scale, expressed in spatial distance lPlanck 1.62 1033cm or in energy scale

EPlanck MPlanckc2 1.22 1019 GeV, where quantum-effects are expected

to strongly affect the nature of space-time. Quantum gravity theory is one of

such particle theory in which all four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak

and strong force) are treated in a unified framework.

There is great interest in the (not yet validated) idea that, in a realization

of the quantum gravity theory, Lorentz invariance might break near the Planck

scale. A key test of such violation of Lorentz invariance is possible variation

of speed of light with energy [158, 159, 160, 161, 162]. Even a tiny variation

in photon-speed, when accumulated over cosmological light-travel times, may

be revealed by studying sharp features in gamma-ray burst light-curves.

We here focus on measurement of possible time lag between the GRB

onset and the arrival of very high energy photons such as a 13 GeV photon

associated with GRB 080916C and a 31 GeV from the distant (z 0.9) and

short GRB 090510 which help us set the significant constraints on Lorentz

Invariance Violation (LIV). In summary, we find no evidence for violation

131

132 CHAPTER 8. LIMITS ON LORENTZ INVARIANCE VIOLATION

of Lorentz invariance, and place a conservative lower limit of 1.2 EPlanck

on the energy-scale (or an upper-limit of lPlanck1.2 on the length-scale) of a

linear energy-dependence (or inverse-linear wavelength-dependence), subject

to reasonable assumptions about the emission. Our results support Lorentz

invariance, and disfavour a class of quantum-gravity theories [160, 164, 163] in

which a postulated granularity of space-time on a very small scale alters the

speed of light, and predict that the velocity of light depends linearly on the

photon-energy.

By placing an upper limit on the observed time delay between arrival time

of simultaneously emitted photons, one can put a lower limit on the quantum

gravity mass which is related to a scale factor in the power series expansion of

the photon velocity vph. Gamma-Ray Bursts are excellent sources to perform

such study as the onset of their emission is usually sharply defined in time and

can therefore be used as the earliest time at which any photon was emitted

(detection might be delayed however due to quantum gravity effects). Nat-

urally, high energy photons detected soon after the GRB onset are the best

candidates to put significant constraints on LIV. In the following analysis, we

make use of a 13 GeV event associated with GRB 080916C and a 31

GeV event associated with GRB 090510. Of course the association of the high

energy event with the GRB is of utmost importance as the basic assumption

in our analysis is that this high energy event detected by the LAT was indeed

emitted by the GRB no earlier than the emission onset.

Section 8.1 describes the methodology used to derive our constraints on

Lorentz Invariance Violation. Section 8.2 gives a detailed description of analy-

ses used to characterize the highest energy LAT events, establish their chance

association with the GRB and their energy uncertainty which is crucial to

compute reliable limits on the quantum gravity parameter. Finally, section

8.3 summarizes our results concerning Lorentz Invariance Violation that were

obtained with GRB 080916C and GRB 090510.

8.1 Method

Some quantum gravity models [160, 164, 163] allow violation of Lorentz in-

variance, and in particular allow the photon propagation speed, vph, to depend

8.2. CHARACTERIZATION AND ENERGYUNCERTAINTYOF LAT EVENTS133

on its energy, Eph:

vphpEphq c, where: c limEphÑ0

vphpEphq (8.0)

The Lorentz invariance violating (LIV) part in the dependence of the pho-

ton momentum, pph, on its energy, Eph, can be expressed as a power series,

p2phc

2

E2ph

1 8

k1

sk

Eph

MQG,kc2

k(8.0)

in the ratio of Eph and a typical energy scale MQG,kc2 for the kth or-

der, which is expected to be up to the order of the Planck scale, MPlanck p~cGq12 1.22 1019GeV c2, where sk P t1, 0, 1u. Since we observe pho-

tons of energy well below the Planck scale, the dominant LIV term is associated

with the lowest order non-zero term in the sum, of order n mintk|sk 0u,which is usually assumed to be either linear (n = 1) or quadratic (n = 2). The

photon propagation speed is given by the corresponding group velocity,

vph BEphBvph c

1 sn

n 1

2

Eph

MQG,nc2

n(8.0)

Note that sn 1 corresponds to the sub-luminal case (vph c and a posi-

tive time delay), while sn 1 corresponds to the super-luminal case (vph ¡ c

and a negative time delay). Taking into account cosmological effects, this in-

duces a time delay (or lag) in the arrival of a high-energy photon of energy

Eh, compared to a low-energy photon of energy El (emitted simultaneously at

the same location), of

∆t snp1 nqpEn

h Enl q

2H0pMQG,nc2qn» z

0

p1 z1qnaΩmp1 z1q3 ΩΛ

dz1 (8.0)

8.2 Characterization and energy uncertainty

of LAT events

This section will provide detailed description of the analysis performed in order

to establish the significant association of individual high energy events with

the GRB with which they were simultaneously detected - we note that similar

analysis was performed on the high energy events used to put a lower limit


on the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet (see section 7.4.2). Section 8.2.1 look at

the characterization of the event in the detector. Section 8.2.2 computes the

chance probability for this event to originate from a background fluctuation

(and therefore not be associated with the GRB). Finally section 8.2.3 evaluates

the best energy and energy uncertainty of the high energy event. We will use

the 31 GeV event detected during GRB 090510 prompt emission to illustrate

the analysis we performed. Similar analysis were performed each time detailed

information on a high energy event were needed for particular analyses such

as LIV analysis and constraints on bulk Lorentz factor.

The highest energy event detected by the LAT during the prompt emission

period and in the vicinity of the GRB 090510 location is a 31 GeV event

which was observed 0.829s after the GBM trigger. This event is particularly

interesting because it could set very stringent limits on the Quantum Gravity

mass scale and the bulk Lorentz factor. It is therefore of great interest to have

a closer look to this particular event, evaluate the probability of this event

being a photon coming from GRB 090510 and have a precise estimate of its

best energy and its energy uncertainty.

8.2.1 Characteristics of high energy events

A powerful way to investigate the event interaction with the detector and

therefore access low-level information is through the use of an event display.

The LAT team developed such a tool named Wired which exactly performs

this task. We have looked at the 31 GeV event with the LAT event display

(figure 8.1), where it shows the following characteristics:

• clean track and few spurious hits in the tracker

• reconstructed track well aligned with the calorimeter cluster

• no ACD tiles fired along the reconstructed trajectory of the event

• several silicon-strip detector layers above the photon vertex shows no

signal which is indicative of a neutral particle

• calorimeter cluster is compact with no spurious hit far away


Figure 8.1: The 31 GeV event as ween with the Wired tool which allow avisual representation of the event with the LAT detector. Left and right panelsrepresent the XY and YZ views respectively (Z-axis being parallel to the LATboresight). Green lines and crosses are the silicon strips that triggered onthis event. While rectangles are the calorimeter logs where energy deposithave been detected (size of small red squares are proportional to the energydeposit in the calorimeter logs). Red rectangles represents ACD tiles thatfired - the two fired tiles at the bottom are due to x-rays which scatter upwardin high energy events. A monolitic ACD such as in the EGRET instrumentwould therefore not have been able to detect such high energy event. Graylines represent best track directions while the yellow track is the best directionfound by the direction reconstruction algorithm.

• electromagnetic shower is not fully contained which is expected given the

high energy of this event (correction for non-contained electromagnetic

shower is applied by the energy reconstruction algorithm as explained

below)

• electromagnetic shower passes through a crack between two towers at

small incidence angle 13 so a significant fraction of the energy is ”lost”

in the crack (we dedicated a special analysis to estimate the energy lost

in the crack for such event as explained below)

The event identification algorithm for the LAT uses the full low-level char-

acteristics of each event to determine its probability to be a photon or a back-

ground event. For that purpose, it uses the standard classification tree that


is trained on Monte-Carlo simulations. By this method, it can determine the

chance probability that an event has to be a gamma-ray, as well as compute

some parameters that describe the quality of the direction and energy recon-

struction. It also assigns each event to different event classification which

are used for different scientific purpose: ’diffuse’, ’source’, ’transient’ from the

purest to the most background contaminated event class. Our 31 GeV event

was classified as a ’transient’ event which raises some concern on its proba-

bility for being a photon. However, looking closer at the parameters used for

the classification, one notices that the only reason why it is not classified as

a ’diffuse’ event is that the parameter characterizing the quality of the direc-

tion reconstruction is barely below the ’diffuse’ threshold (which is probably

related to the fact that this event goes through a crack). In particular, param-

eters describing the probability of this event being a photon from the point of

view of the different elements of the LAT (ACD, Tracker, Calorimeter) and

the LAT as a whole are all very close to 1. As a consequence, purely looking

at the LAT event classification scheme, we can already attribute a very high

confidence level for this event being a gamma-ray photon.

8.2.2 Asociation with GRB090510

Now that the event has been characterized as a photon with very high proba-

bility, it is crucial to look at the probability it has of being associated with the

GRB emission. For the 31 GeV event of GRB 090510, the angular separation

of the reconstructed direction to the best localization found by Swift-UVOT

(R.A.=333.55208, Dec.=-26.58311; 90% confidence error radius=1.5 arcsec-

ond), is found to be 5.8 arcmin which is perfectly consistent with the point

spread function of the instrument at this energy (95% PSF at 30 GeV is

16 arcmin for this type of LAT events).

Another piece of evidence of its possible association with the GRB is the

fact that it is detected in coincidence with the low energy emission of the burst.

A simple estimate of the significance of the 31 GeV photon can be derived

by calculating the probability that the background can generate at least one

event with an energy E ¡ 31 GeV during the bulk GeV emission (from 0.65

to 1.3 s post trigger). To accomplish that, a background-estimation method

(see appendix A) that has an accuracy of 15 20% was used. The expected


number of background events passing the transient classification was estimated

to be 9 106, and the associated probability of detecting at least one event

when expecting that number of background events is 9 106 or 4.4σ (for

a two-sided Gaussian distribution). Since the 31 GeV event barely missed

the ’diffuse’ event classification, the associated significance would be higher

than 4.4σ since a diffuse-class event can be identified as a photon with a

considerably greater certainty. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to repeat the

above calculation using the expected number of diffuse-class events instead.

The result in this case can be used as an upper limit on the significance. The

actual significance should be closer to the upper limit (since the 31 GeV photon

barely did not pass the diffuse-class cuts). We find that the expected number

of diffuse-class background events is 1.7 108 and an associated probability

1.7108 or 5.6σ. Based on the above, the significance of the 31 GeV photon

shows is between 4.4σ amd 5.6σ, with a most likely value towards the upper

bound.

As a conclusion, an association of this high-energy event with GRB 090510

seems very likely given its temporal and spatial coincidence with the burst.

8.2.3 Refined energy estimation

Precise energy estimation of these high energy event is crucial for LIV or bulk

Lorentz factor analyses. In order to state a confidence interval for the energy,

we performed a dedicated analysis of the 31 GeV photon taking into account

the most important characteristics of this event (see section 8.2.1). For that, we

generated a large Monte-Carlo simulation of events with similar characteristics

(angle of incidence and point of impact at the entry of the calorimeter, and of

course the energy range) and then applied cuts to select only the events that

look like the one we are interested in. This allowed us to estimate the proper

energy uncertainty for this specific event.

First of all a remark has to be made on the energy lost in the crack between

the two towers and at the back of the calorimeter. Our energy reconstruction

algorithm takes into account both kind of leakage (cracks and back), this is

why even if the raw energy deposit in the calorimeter is just 16 GeV, the best

reconstructed energy is as high as 31 GeV. This kind of large correction is


not unusual for the LAT and has been extensively validated with both Monte-

Carlo simulations and beam test data. This said, the bigger the correction, the

larger the error on the reconstructed energy, so the ratio of raw energy over

real photon energy is a crucial parameter to take into account when trying to

state a confidence energy interval. We have also investigated the importance

of other parameters like the quality in the direction and energy reconstruction

in order to determine the final best energy estimate and energy uncertainty

for this particular event.

Given the specificities of this event and the constraints needed to get a

representative sample of this type of event, we have setup a dedicated Monte-

Carlo simulation with the following parameters: similar impact point at the

entrance of the calorimeter, similar angle of incidence (which will place the

event track close to the calorimeter crack where our event lost a significant

fraction of its energy) and finally a true energy distribution flat from 10 to 50

GeV. More than 10 billion events were written to disk which was necessary to

nail down the correct true energy range of this event.

Starting from the sample of simulated gamma-ray photons, we applied

a number of quality cuts to select the interesting events that are the most

representative of our 31 GeV event: photon classification, gamma-ray con-

version in the same tracker layer and reconstructed energy around 31 GeV

(|Erecon 31.3107| 2.0).

Finally from the distribution of the ratio of the reconstructed energy to the

true energy (EreconEtrue) (see figure 8.2), we estimated the correction factor

to obtain the best true energy estimate knowing the reconstructed energy and

estimated the 68% and 95% confidence interval (symetric with respect to the

best value just mentioned). We find the best energy estimate for this particular

event to be 30.53 GeV with a 1 σ (2 σ) confidence interval of [27.97,

36.32] GeV ([25.86, 42.94] GeV).

8.3 Limits on possible time delay and on MQG

We now report on the constraints we obtain for the linear energy dependence

(n = 1), while we do not obtain any significant limit for n=2 or higher orders.

GRB 090816C was the first bright burst detected by the LAT with its highest

8.3. LIMITS ON POSSIBLE TIME DELAY AND ON MQG 139

Figure 8.2: Distribution of the reconstructed energy (CTBBestEnergy) with

respect to the Monte-Carlo energy (McEnergy):McEnergy

CTBBestEnergy1. Starting

from the sample of simulated γ-ray photons, a number of quality cuts were ap-plied to select events that are most representative of real event for which we areestimating the energy uncertainty: photon classification, gamma-ray conver-sion in the same tracker layer and reconstructed energy around the measuredenergy. Vertical dot-dashed lines represent the mean measured energy (black)as well as the 1 σ (green) and 2 σ asymetric uncertainties.


0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Cou

nts/

bin

0

50

100

150

Cou

nts/

s

0

5000

10000

15000

-0.0

3

GBM NaIs

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Cou

nts/

bin

050

100150200

Cou

nts/

s

05000100001500020000GBM BGOs

Cou

nts/

bin

0

20

40

Cou

nts/

s

0

2000

4000LAT(All events)

Cou

nts/

bin

0

2

4

Cou

nts/

s

0

200

400LAT(> 100 MeV)

Time since GBM trigger (May 10, 2009, 00:22:59.97 UT) (s)-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Cou

nts/

bin

0

1

2

3

Ener

gy [G

eV]

21

51020LAT

(> 1 GeV)

0.63

0.73

Ener

gy (M

eV)

10

210

310

410

(0.26–5 MeV)

(8–260 keV)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

0.53

Figure 8.3: Light curves of GRB 090510 at different energies. Panel (a):energy vs. arrival time w.r.t the GBM trigger time for the LAT photonsthat passed the transient off-line event selection (red) and the photons thatpassed the onboard γ-ray filter (cyan), and are consistent with the directionof GRB 090510. The solid and dashed curves are normalized to pass throughthe highest energy (31 GeV) photon and represent the relation between aphoton’s energy and arrival time for linear (n=1, solid) and quadratic (n=2,dashed) LIV, respectively, assuming it is emitted at tstart 30 ms (black; firstsmall GBM pulse onset), 530 ms (red; main 1 MeV emission onset), 630 ms(green; ¡ 100 MeV emission onset), 730 ms (blue; ¡ 1 GeV emission onset).Photons emitted at tstart would be located along such a line due to (a positive)LIV induced time delay. Panels (b)(f): GBM and LAT light curves, fromlowest to highest energies. Panel (f) also overlays energy vs. arrival time foreach photon, with the energy scale displayed on the right side. The dashed-dotted vertical lines show our 4 different possible choices for tstart. The grayshaded regions indicate the arrival time of the 31 GeV photon 10 ms (onthe right) and of a 750 MeV photon (during the first GBM pulse) 20 ms (onthe left), which can both constrain a negative time delay. Panels (b) and (c)show background subtracted light curves for GBM NaI in the 8260 keV bandand a GBM BGO in the 0.2605 MeV band, respectively. Panels (d)(f) show,respectively, LAT events passing the onboard γ-ray filter, LAT transient classevents with E ¡ 100 MeV, and LAT transient class events with E ¡ 1 GeV. Inall light curves, the time-bin width is 10 ms. In panels (b)(e) the per-secondcount rate is displayed on the right for convenience.


energy photon detected at 13.220.701.54 GeV, and arrived 16.54 s after trigger

(i.e. the onset of the 100 keV emission). From equation 8.1, we could derive

lower limits on the quantum gravity mass scale MQG based on various assump-

tions. Since it is hard to associate the highest energy photon with a particular

spike in the low-energy lightcurve, we made the conservative assumption that

it was emitted anytime after the GRB trigger, i.e. ∆t ¤ t ttrigger, in order

to obtain a limit for the sub-luminal case (sn 1). We obtain a limit an

order of magnitude below the Planck mass: MQG,1 ¡ 0.1MPlanck. This was

the strictest limit of its kind at that time.

However, the very bright LAT GRB 090510 would push this limit even

further. It is a short burst with very narrow sharp spikes in its light curve

with a highest energy photon of 31 GeV (see Fig. 8.3). Ground-based

optical spectroscopy data exhibited prominent emission lines at a common

redshift of z 0.903 0.003 [138], corresponding to a luminosity distance of

dL 1.81028 cm (for a standard cosmology, [ΩΛ, Ωm, h] = [0.73, 0.27, 0.71]).

Our main results for GRB 090510 are summarized in table 8.1. The first 4

limits are based on a similar method as described above for GRB 080916C,

using the highest energy photon, Eh 30.535.792.56 GeV. We do not attempt to

associate the relevant high-energy photon with a particular spike in the low-

energy light-curve; instead, we simply assume that it was emitted sometime

during the relevant lower-energy emission episode, i.e. we assume that its

emission time th was after the start of a relevant lower energy emission episode:

th ¡ tstart. We have conservatively used the 31 GeV photon, even if another

photon gave a stricter limit, since it is less sensitive to the exact choice of tstart

or to intrinsic-lags. And we also conservatively used the low end of the 1 σ

confidence interval for the highest energy photon (Eh 28 GeV) and for the

redshift (z = 0.900). The 4 limits correspond to different choices of tstart, which

are shown by the vertical lines in Fig. 8.3. In the following, we describe several

possible different assumptions along with the astrophysical reasoning behind

them and the corresponding lower limits on MQG, starting from the most

conservative assumption, and ending with the least conservative assumption

(which is still very likely, and with good astrophysical motivation). our most

conservative assumption is based on the fact that no high-energy photon has

ever been detected before the onset of the low-energy emission in a GRB.


Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the 31 GeV photon was emitted before the

observed onset of GRB 090510 and we therefore associate tstart with the onset

of any detectable emission from GRB 090510, namely the start of the small

precursor that GBM triggered on, leading to ξ1 MQG,1MPlanck ¡ 1.19. We

consider this as our most conservative lower limit on the quantum gravity mass

scale. Our data can be used to set additional limits, which while not as secure

as the one mentioned above, are still very useful. It is indeed highly unlikely

that the 31 GeV photon is indeed associated with the small precursor. It is

much more likely associated with the main soft gamma-ray emission, leading

to ξ1 ¡ 3.42. Moreover, for any reasonable emission spectrum, the emission of

the 31 GeV photon would be accompanied by the emission of a large number

of lower energy photons, which would suffer a much smaller time delay due

to LIV effects, and would therefore mark its emission time. We could easily

detect such photons in energies above 100 MeV, and therefore the fact that

significant high-energy emission is observed only at later times (see Fig. 8.3)

strongly argues that the 31 GeV photon was not emitted before the onset of

the observed high-energy emission. One could choose either the onset time of

the emission above 100 MeV or above 1 GeV, which correspond to ξ1 ¡ 5.12,

and ξ1 ¡ 10.0, respectively. We note that there is no evidence for LIV induced

energy dispersion that might be expected if indeed the 31 GeV photon was

emitted near our choices for tstart, together with lower energy photons, as can

be expected for any reasonable emission spectrum. This is evident from the

lack of accumulation of photons along the solid curves in panel (a) of Fig. 8.3,

at least for the first 3 tstart values, and provides support for these choices of

tstart (i.e. that they can indeed serve as upper limits on a LIV induced energy

dispersion).

Finally, one can also set limits on LIV-induced time-delays of either sign

based on the temporal association of the 31-GeV photon with the 7th GBM

spike, and by associating the 0.75 GeV photon with the first GBM spike, since

these photons arrive near the peak of a very narrow GBM spike, which is

unlikely due to chance coincidences. These associations would imply ξ1 ¡ 102

and ξ1 ¡ 1.33, respectively. It is important to keep in mind, however, that

while these associations are most likely, they are not very secure.

Using the so-called DisCan method [268], [148] were able to get another


tstart(ms)

|∆t|limit(ms)

Reason for choice of tstart or limiton ∆t

El(MeV)

sn Lowerlimit onMQG,1 /MPlanck

-30 859 start of any observed emission 0.1 1 ¡ 1.19530 299 start of main 1 MeV emission 0.1 1 ¡ 3.42630 199 start of ¡ 100 MeV emission 100 1 ¡ 5.12730 99 start of ¡ 1 GeV emission 1000 1 ¡ 10.0- 10 association with 1 MeV spike 0.1 1 ¡ 102- 19 if 0.75 GeV γ is from 1st spike 0.1 1 ¡ 1.33

Table 8.1: Lower-limits on the Quantum Gravity mass scale associated witha possible linear (n = 1) variation of the speed of light with photon energy,that we can place from the lack of time delay (of sign sn) in the arrival ofhigh-energy photons relative to low-energy photons, from our observations ofGRB 090510.

independent limit on the quantum gravity mass scale of ξ1 ¡ 1.22 which

confirms the conservative limit obtained in the method presented above. This

method relies on very different and largely independent analysis, but yet still

give a very similar limit. This lends considerable support to this result, and

makes it more robust and secure than for each of the methods separately. We

refer the interested reader to [148] for more details on this alternative method.

In the end, our most secure and conservative new limit, ξ1 ¡ 1.2, is much

stronger than the previous best limit of this kind (ξ1 ¡ 0.1 from GRB080916C)

and fundamentally more meaningful. Since, in most quantum gravity scenar-

ios, MQG,n À MPlanck, even our most conservative limits greatly reduce the

parameter space for n = 1 models [269, 270]. Our other limits, and especially

our least conservative limit of ξ1 ¡ 102, make such theories highly implausible

(Models with n ¡ 1 are not significantly constrained by our results). Thus,

it is unlikely that other predictions of such n = 1 models would be observed.

Our stringent photon dispersion limit greatly solidifies the conclusion that vi-

olation of Lorentz invariance implied by a presumed lumpiness of space-time

at the Planck scale is not supported by astrophysical observations.

Chapter 9

LAT Constraints on the

Gamma-ray Opacity of the

Universe

The so-called Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) includes photons from

ultraviolet to infrared, which are effective in attenuating high energy γ-rays

through pair creation (γγ Ñ ee) during propagation from sources at cosmo-

logical distances. This results in a redshift- and energy-dependent attenuation

of the γ-ray flux of extragalactic sources such as blazars and Gamma-Ray

Bursts (GRBs). A major science goal of Fermi is to probe the opacity of the

Universe to high-energy (HE) γ-rays as they propagate from their sources to

Earth. The LAT onboard Fermi detects a sample of γ-ray blazars with redshift

up to z 3, and GRBs with redshift up to z 4.3. The LAT is a unique

instrument for such study in the sense that it observes both the unabsorbed

part of the spectrum (typically À 10 GeV) as well as the energy range where

EBL absorption is significant (typically ¡¡ 10 GeV) Using photons above

10 GeV collected by Fermi over more than one year of observations for these

sources, we investigate the effects of the EBL on the γ-ray flux. We constrain

the γ-ray opacity of the Universe at various energies and redshifts, and com-

pare this with predictions from well-known EBL models. We find that an

EBL intensity in the optical–ultraviolet wavelengths as great as predicted by

the “fast-evolution” and “baseline” models of Stecker et al. [255] can be ruled

out with high confidence. After a brief introduction in section 9.1, section 9.2

144

9.1. INTRODUCTION 145

describes the sample of blazars and GRBs detected by the LAT along with

its various biases. Section 9.3 gives the detailed of the various methods used

as well as their results. Finally we discuss the implication of our results in

section 9.4.

9.1 Introduction

A presentation of the EBL and its absorbing effect of γ-rays have been pre-

sented in chapter 3. We now focus on the use of Fermi data to constrain

different models of EBL that have been proposed in the literature. The mod-

els encompass different degrees of complexity, observational constraints and

data inputs. Unfortunately, the available direct EBL measurements do not

constrain these models strongly at optical-UV wavelengths due to the large

scatter in the data points. Detailed description of these models is beyond the

scope of this work; we refer the reader to the original works on the various

EBL models [e.g., 247, 255, 223, 224, 242, 214, 211, 244, 209].

For the analyses presented in this work we have made use of the optical

depth values τpE, zq provided by the authors of these EBL models. These

models are available via webpages 1, analytical approximations (as in, e.g.,

Stecker et al. [255]), published tables (as in, e.g., Franceschini et al. [211])

or via private communications (which is the case for, e.g., Salamon & Stecker

[247], Primack et al. [242], Gilmore et al. [214], Finke et al. [209] for this work).

Since the optical depth values are usually available in tabular form, for exact

values of observed energy E and redshift z a linear interpolation of τpE, zq is

used for arbitrary values of E and z in our calculations below.

The range of predictions by these EBL models is illustrated in Figure 3.3

as a function of observed γ-ray energy for sources at different redshifts. The

Universe is optically thin (τγγ 1) to γ-rays with energy below 10 GeV

up to redshift z 3, independently of the model (see also Hartmann [216]).

This is due to the rapid extinction of EBL photons shortwards of the Lyman

limit. Gamma rays below 10 GeV are not attenuated substantially because

far-UV and X-ray diffuse backgrounds is weak.

The primary sources of HE extragalactic γ-rays are blazars and gamma

1 http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~tkneiske/Tau_data.html for Kneiske2004; http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~finke/EBL/index.html for Finke et al. 2010

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~tkneiske/Tau_data.html

http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~finke/EBL/index.html

146CHAPTER 9. LAT CONSTRAINTS ON THEGAMMA-RAYOPACITY OF THE UNIVERSE

ray bursts (GRBs). Blazars are active galactic nuclei (AGN) with relativistic

plasma outflows (jets) directed along our line of sight. Long GRBs are believed

to be associated with the core collapse of massive stars, while short GRBs

might be caused by binary mergers of neutron stars or neutron star - black

hole systems. Some GRBs produce beamed high-energy radiation similar to

the case of blazars but lasting for a short period of time. GRBs have not been

used to constrain EBL absorption during the pre-Fermi era mainly because

of a lack of sensitivity to transient objects above 10 GeV. The sensitivity of

EGRET decreased significantly above 10 GeV, and the field-of-view (FoV) of

TeV instruments is small (typically 2 4) to catch the prompt phase where

most of the HE emission occurs. The new energy window (10 300 GeV)

accessible by Fermi, and the wide FoV of the LAT, makes GRBs interesting

targets to constrain EBL absorption in this energy band.

Evaluating the ratio of the absorbed to unabsorbed fluxes from a large

number of distant blazars and GRBs observed by Fermi could result in inter-

esting EBL constraints, as proposed by Chen et al. [201], although intrinsic

spectral curvature [e.g., 232] or redshift dependent source internal absorption

[246] could make this, or similar techniques, less effective. Georganopoulos

et al. [212] have proposed that Compton scattering of the EBL by the radio

lobes of nearby radio galaxies such as Fornax A could be detectable by the

Fermi-LAT. If identified as unambiguously originating from such process, a

LAT detection of Fornax A could constrain the local EBL intensity.

Because the e-folding cutoff energy, Epτγγ 1q, from γγ pair production

in γ-ray source spectra decreases with redshift, modern Cherenkov γ-ray tele-

scopes are limited to probing EBL absorption at low redshift due to their

detection energy thresholds typically at or below 50 GeV to 100 GeV [220].

Ground-based γ-ray telescopes have detected 35 extragalactic sources to date2,

mostly of the high-synchrotron peaked (HSP) BL Lacertae objects type. The

most distant sources seen from the ground with a confirmed redshift are the

flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ) 3C 279 at z 0.536 [196] and PKS 1510-

089 at z 0.36 [262]. Observations of the closest sources at multi-TeV energies

have been effective in placing limits on the local EBL at mid-IR wavelengths,

while spectra of more distant sources generally do not extend above 1 TeV,

2e.g.,http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/sources/, http:

//www.mppmu.mpg.de/~rwagner/sources/

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/sources/

http://www.mppmu.mpg.de/~rwagner/sources/

http://www.mppmu.mpg.de/~rwagner/sources/

9.1. INTRODUCTION 147

and therefore probe the optical and near-IR starlight peak of the intervening

EBL [e.g., 256, 253, 250, 191, 192, 202, 193, 235, 196, 225, 208].

The starting point for constraining the EBL intensity from observations

of TeV γ-rays from distant blazars with atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes is

the assumption of a reasonable intrinsic blazar spectrum, which, in the case

of a power law, dNdE9EΓint for example, that is not harder than a pre-

specified minimum value, e.g., Γint ¥ Γmin 0.67 or 1.5. Upper limits on the

EBL intensity are obtained when the reconstructed intrinsic spectral index

from the observed spectrum, Γobs, presumably softened by EBL absorption

of very high energy (VHE) γ-rays, is required to not fall below Γint. The

minimum value of Γ has been a matter of much debate, being reasoned to be

Γint 1.5 by Aharonian et al. [193] from simple shock acceleration theory and

from the observed spectral energy distribution (SED) properties of blazars,

while Stecker et al. [254] argued for harder values (less than 1.5) under specific

conditions based on more detailed shock acceleration simulations. Katarzynski

et al. [222] suggested that a spectral index as hard as Γint 0.67 was possible

in a single-zone leptonic model if the underlying electron spectrum responsible

for inverse-Compton emission had a sharp lower-energy cutoff. Bottcher et

al. [200] noted that Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background

radiation by extended jets could lead to harder observed VHE γ-ray spectra,

and Aharonian et al. [195] have argued that internal absorption could, in some

cases, lead to harder spectra in the TeV range as well.

An approach less dependent on specifics of models uses the (unabsorbed)

photon index as measured in the sub-GeV range as the intrinsic spectral slope

at GeV-TeV energies. This method has recently been applied to PG 1553+113

[179] and 1ES 1424+240 [189, 241] to derive upper limits on their uncertain

redshifts, and to search for EBL-induced spectral softening in Fermi observa-

tions of a sample of TeV-selected AGN [188].

Attenuation in the spectra of higher redshift objects (z Á 1) may be de-

tectable at the lower energies that are accessible to the Fermi-LAT, i.e., at

E 10 300 GeV. Gamma rays at these energies are attenuated mainly by

the UV background, which is produced primarily by young stellar populations

and closely traces the global star-formation rate. Fermi observations of high


redshift sources can therefore reveal information about the star-formation his-

tory of the early Universe, as well as the uncertain attenuation of UV starlight

by dust.

In this section, we present constraints on the EBL intensity of the Universe

derived from Fermi-LAT observations of blazars and GRBs. The highest-

energy γ-rays from high redshift sources are the most effective probe of the

EBL intensity, and consequently a powerful tool for investigating possible sig-

natures of EBL absorption. In contrast to ground-based γ-ray detectors, Fermi

offers the possibility of probing the EBL at high redshifts by the detection of

AGN at Á 10 GeV energies out to z ¡ 3, and additionally by the detection of

GRB 080916C at a redshift of 4.35 [175, 213]. GRBs are known to exist at

even higher redshifts [259, GRB 090423 is the current record holder with z 8.2]. Therefore observations of these sources with Fermi are promising candi-

dates for probing the optical-UV EBL at high redshifts that are not currently

accessible to ground-based (Cherenkov) telescopes.

In Section 9.2 we describe our data selections, the Fermi LAT AGN and

GRB observations during the first year of operation and analysis, and we

discuss potential biases in the selection. Our methodology and results are

presented in Section 9.3. Finally we discuss implications of our results in

Section 9.4.

In the following, energies are in the observer frame except where noted

otherwise.

9.2 Observations and Data Selection

The data set used for the analysis of the AGNs includes LAT events with

energy above 100 MeV that were collected between 2008 August 4 and 2009

July 4. LAT-detected GRBs are considered up to 2009 September 30. A

zenith angle cut of 105 was applied in order to greatly reduce any contam-

ination from the Earth albedo. Blazars and GRBs have different emission

characteristics, which result in different analysis procedures here. The event

rate detected by the LAT in the vicinity (68% confidence radius) of a blazar

is largely background dominated and only continuous observations over long

time scales allow the detection of the underlying blazar emission. To minimize

9.2. OBSERVATIONS AND DATA SELECTION 149

the background contamination when analyzing blazar data we use the “dif-

fuse” class events, which provide the purest γ-ray sample and the best angular

resolution. GRBs, on the other hand, emit most of their radiative γ-ray power

on very short time scales (typically on the order of seconds) where the event

rate can be considered mostly background free (at least during the prompt

emission of bright bursts). It is therefore possible to loosen the event class

selection to increase the effective area at the expense of a higher background

rate which is still small on short time scales for bright bursts. The “transient”

class was designed for this specific purpose and we use these events for GRB

analysis.3

9.2.1 AGN sample and potential biases

We use blazars extracted from the First LAT AGN Catalog [1LAC; 183] as

the AGN source sample to probe the UV through optical EBL. This catalog

contains 671 sources at high Galactic latitude (|b| ¡ 10) associated with

high-confidence with blazars and other AGNs that were detected with a Test

Statistic4 TS ¡ 25 during the first 11 months of science operation of the LAT.

Detection of correlated multiwavelength variability was required in order to

establish a source as being identified.

Source associations were made with a Bayesian approach [similar to 234].

The Bayesian approach for source association implemented in the gtsrcid tool

of the LAT ScienceTools package5 uses only spatial coincidences between LAT

and the counterpart sources. Candidate source catalogs used for this procedure

include CRATES [218], CGRaBS [219] and the Roma-BZCAT [231], which also

provide optical classifications and the latter two provide also spectroscopic

redshifts for the sources. See Abdo et al. [183] for further details on the source

detection and association algorithims refered to here.

As discussed below, some methods applied here require one to distinguish

3see [197] for further details on LAT event selection.4The test statistic (TS) is defined as TS 2plogpL0qlogpL1qq with L0 the likelihood

of the Null-hypothesis model as compared to the likelihood of a competitive model, L1, (seeSection 3.2.2).

5http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/overview.html


among the different blazar source classes. Flat-spectrum radio quasars (FS-

RQs) and BL Lacs are discerned by their observed optical emission line equiv-

alent widths and the Ca II break ratio [e.g., 257, 229] following the proce-

dure outlined in Abdo et al. [176]. The BL Lac class itself is sub-divided

into Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Synchrotron peaked BL Lacs (denoted as

LSP-BLs, ISP-BLs and HSP-BLs, respectively) by estimating the position of

their synchrotron peak, νspeak, from the indices αox 0.384 logpf5000Af1keVqand αro 0.197 logpf5GHzf5000Aq determined by the (rest frame) optical

pf5000Aq, X-ray pf1keVq and radio pf5GHzq flux densities listed in the online

version of the Roma-BZCAT blazar catalog [231], and using an empirical rela-

tionship between those broadband indices and νspeak as derived in Abdo et al.

[182]. LSP-BLs have their synchrotron peak at νspeak 1014 Hz, ISP-BLs at

1014 Hz¤ νspeak ¤ 1015 Hz and HSP-BLs at νspeak ¡ 1015 Hz. This is found to

be in agreement with the classifications used in Abdo et al. [181, 182]. Nearly

all the 296 FSRQs are of LSP-type, while only 23% of the 300 BL Lacs are

LSP-BLs, 15% are ISP-BLs, and 39% are HSP-BLs, 72 AGNs could not be

classified, and 41 AGNs are of other type than listed above.

Redshift information on the sources is extracted from the counterpart

source catalogs (CRATES, CGRaBS, Roma-BZCAT). While all the redshifts

of the 1LAC FSRQs are known, only 42% of the high-confidence BL Lacs have

measured redshifts. Obviously, AGN without redshift information are not used

in the present work.

The intrinsic average photon indices of Fermi blazars in the LAT energy

range indicate a systematic hardening with source type from 2.5 for FSRQs

via 2.2 for LSP- and 2.1 for ISP-, to 1.9 for HSP-BLs [181]. On the

other hand, their redshift distributions systematically decrease from the high-

redshift (up to z 3.1) FSRQs, via LSP-BLs located up to a redshift z 1.5,

down to the mostly nearby HSP-BLs at z 0.5. This mimics a spectral

softening with redshift if blazars are not treated separately by source type.

A search for any systematic spectral evolution must therefore differentiate

between the various AGN sub-classes (see below).

To detect absorption features in the HE spectra (¡ 10 GeV; see Fig. 3.3)

of Fermi blazars, a thorough understanding of their intrinsic spectra, includ-

ing variability, and source internal spectral features is required. Most blazars

9.2. OBSERVATIONS AND DATA SELECTION 151

do not show strong spectral variability in the LAT energy range on Á week

scales [181], despite often strong flux variability [185]. Indeed at least three

blazars which turn out to constrain the UV EBL the most (see Section 9.3.2,

9.3.2), show a ¡ 99% probability of being variable in flux (using a χ2 test)

with a normalized excess variance of 0.02 0.2 on time scales of hours to

weeks. PKS 1502+106 (J1504+1029) is one of the most constraining sources

in the sample. It displayed an exceptional flare in August 2008 with a factor

3 increase in flux within 12 hours [180]. During this flare a flatter (when

brighter) spectral shape was evident. The spectral curvature at the high en-

ergy end increased with decreasing flux level. If the high energy (Á 10 GeV)

photons are emitted during such flare activity, the constraints on the γ-ray

optical depth would be tighter if only the flare-state spectral data were used.

Because of limited photon statistics during the flare, however, we use the more

conservative time averaged spectrum in the present analysis.

Absorption in radiation fields internal to the source (e.g., accretion disk

radiation, photon emission from the broad line region) may cause a systematic

break in the γ-ray spectra that coincidentally mimics EBL attenuation [246].

In the case where such internal absorption occurs, its redshift dependence is

guaranteed, even in the absence of accretion evolution. This is because of the

redshifting of that energy where the interaction probability is maximum [246].

Any technique that explores systematic variaton of observables (e.g., changes

in spectral slope, flux ratios, e-folding cutoff energy) with redshift to single

out EBL-induced absorption features in blazars with luminous accretion disk

radiation (possibly indicated by strong emission lines) might therefore suffer

from such a bias.

All bright strong-line Fermi blazars (i.e., Fermi-FSRQs and some LSP- and

ISP-BLs), however, have been found to show spectral breaks already in the

1-10 GeV (source frame) range [181]. This is too low in energy to be caused

by EBL-attenuation for their redshift range À 3 (see Fig. 3.3). Although it is

not clear if these breaks are due to internal absorption, the spectral softening

results in low photon counts at energies Á 10 GeV where EBL absorption is

expected. Spectra of all bright HSP-BLs and some ISP-BLs, on the other hand,

can be well represented by simple power laws without any signs of curvature or

breaks. This indicates not only do they not have significant internal absorption


in the γ-ray band, but also the absence of significant EBL absorption, which is

expected to be beyond the LAT energy range for this nearby (z À 0.5) blazar

population.

Consequently, as we show in Section 9.3.1, it remains challenging to quan-

tify EBL absorption effects in the LAT energy range based on population

studies. On the other hand, the determination of the EBL-caused absorption

features from individual blazars requires bright, high redshift objects with

spectra extending to " 10 GeV (Fig. 3.3), and we focus on these blazars in

Section 9.3.2.

9.2.2 GRB sample and potential biases

The Fermi LAT has detected 11 GRBs from the beginning of its science op-

eration (August, 4th 2008) until 30 September 2009, 6 of which have redshift

measurements. Figure 9.2 shows the redshift and highest energy event associ-

ated with each of these GRBs. The probability of non-association is extremely

small (see Table 1).

GRB prompt emission is highly variable and shows signs of spectral evo-

lution, a source of systematics to be considered carefully. Our approach in

this paper is to restrict ourselves to the analysis of small time windows dur-

ing the GRB emission where the temporal behavior does not seem to change

significantly.

The GRB spectral behavior is well-represented by the Band function (Band

et al. 1993) in the keV–MeV range. An additional hard, Γ 1.5–2, power-

law component, dominating at Á 100 MeV, has now been firmly identified

in a few GRBs: GRB090510 [190], GRB090902B, [177], GRB090926A [186].

Its absence in other LAT bursts could well be due to limited photon statis-

tics. We assume that the power-law component extends well beyond 100 MeV

up to 10 GeV, below which EBL absorption is negligible (see Fig. 3.3).

EBL absorption is then expected to soften the power-law spectra from the ex-

trapolation of the intrinsic/unabsorbed spectra beyond 10 GeV. Systematic

effects will, of course, occur when an intrinsic spectrum at high energies differs

from this extrapolation. Source internal and/or intrinsic absorption via pair

creation, e.g., would produce a curvature of the spectrum at higher energy

which could be misinterpreted as an EBL absorption effect. Such a spectral

9.3. ANALYSIS OF γ-RAY FLUX ATTENUATION AND RESULTS 153

break, which could be due to intrinsic pair creation, was detected in the LAT

data from GRB 090926A [186] but we note that a corresponding roll-off in

the intrinsic spectrum can only make our limits on the γ-ray optical depth

more conservative. By contrast, a rising spectral component above ¡10 GeV

would make our limits less constraining, but in the absence of any evidence

for inverted gamma-ray spectra in GRBs, we consider this possibility unlikely.

9.3 Analysis of γ-ray flux attenuation and re-

sults

Assuming that high-energy photon absorption by the EBL is the sole mecha-

nism that affects the γ-ray flux from a source at redshift z, the observed (i.e.

absorbed) and unabsorbed fluxes at the observed energy E can be related by

the optical depth, τγγpE, zq, as

FobspEq exprτγγpE, zqsFunabspEq. (9.0)

This is the primary expression that we use to (i) explore γ-ray flux atten-

uation in the EBL from AGNs by means of a redshift-dependent flux ratio

between a low- and a high- energy band; (ii) constrain EBL models which

predict τγγpE, zq values much higher than the optical depth that would give

the observed fluxes from individual blazars and GRBs; and (iii) put upper

limits on the γ-ray optical depth calculated from the observed flux of individ-

ual blazars and GRBs, and the extrapolation of the unabsorbed flux to high

energies. We discuss these methods and the results from our analysis below.

9.3.1 Flux ratios - a population based method

Because of inherent uncertainties in the determination of the intrinsic spec-

trum (Γint) for any given blazar in the pre-Fermi era, Chen et al. [201] proposed

the average ratio F p¡ 10 GeVqF p¡ 1 GeVq for all blazars with significant

detections above 1 GeV, weighted according to the errors in F p¡ 1 GeVq, as

a redshift-dependent tracer of the EBL attenuation of γ-ray flux. The average

flux ratio could then be compared with the predictions of the EBL models,

taking selection effects into account. This approach assumes that the blazars


are sampled from a homogeneous distribution with a single redshift-dependent

luminosity function and a single intrinsic spectral index distribution. Prelimi-

nary results from Fermi [176] indicate that this assumption is inadequate. Con-

sequently, we have calculated the average flux ratios for the different classes

of blazars and discuss the results below.

Among the AGN sample described in Section 9.2.1 we find that 237 FSRQs,

110 BL Lacs and 25 other AGNs are clean6 1LAC associations with known

redshift and detectable fluxes at energies ¥ 1 GeV. There are 30 LSP-, 18

ISP- and 60 HSP- BL Lacs in this sub-sample.

Of these AGN, only 22 FSRQs, 49 BL Lacs, and 1 other AGN have flux

detections rather than upper limits above 10 GeV, including 10 LSP-, 6 ISP-,

and 33 HSP-BL Lacs. For each of these BL Lacs and FSRQs, we calculated

the ratio between the fluxes above 10 GeV and 1 GeV and their corresponding

statistical errors following Chen et al. [201].

Blazartype

Num Γ ratio(pred)

mean ratio(obs)

red.χ2

prob

FSRQ 22 2.30.1 0.040.01 0.014 0.001 4.38 1.8 1010

LSP-BL 10 2.20.1 0.070.01 0.028 0.003 1.65 0.11ISP-BL 6 2.10.1 0.080.02 0.048 0.008 1.86 0.11HSP-BL 33 1.90.1 0.120.03 0.100 0.005 1.29 0.13

Table 9.1: Spectral indices, mean predicted and observed flux ratios, andreduced χ2 and probability for blazar sub-populations

Figure 9.1 shows the observed flux ratios for the FSRQ population and

BL Lac sub-populations as well as the ratios predicted according to the 1FGL

spectral index of each blazar, assuming an unbroken power law and no EBL

attenuation. Table 9.1 shows the mean spectral index, mean flux ratios ob-

served and expected, and the reduced χ2 and associated probability given a

parent distribution with constant flux ratio. As the blazar classes progress

from FSRQ through LSP-BL, ISP-BL, and HSP-BL,

1. the range of redshifts becomes narrower;

2. on average, the spectra become harder;

6i.e., its association probability is at least 80%, it is the sole AGN associated with thecorresponding γ-ray source, and it is not flagged to have problems that cast doubt on itsdetection [183]


3. both the predicted and observed mean flux ratios increase;

4. the difference between the predicted and observed flux ratios decreases.

The trend in the predicted flux ratios is a direct consequence of the harden-

ing of the spectra as a function of source class, while the difference between the

predicted and observed flux ratios is due to the fact that the curvature of the

spectra decrease as the HE peak of the SED moves through the Fermi-LAT en-

ergies. The apparent discrepancies between the flux ratios for different blazar

sub-populations arise from the fact that the LAT samples different parts of

the blazar SED for these sub-classes. Indeed, a redshift distribution of the flux

ratios for the combined blazar populations would show a strong, apparently

decreasing trend, giving the appearance of an EBL absorption effect. When we

separate the blazars into sub-populations, we find no significant redshift de-

pendence of the flux ratios within each sub-population. The dearth of sources

at high redshift and the large spread of spectral indices make it difficult to

use the mean trend in the flux ratio as a function of redshift. To set upper

limits on the γ-ray optical depth, we need to rely on the spectra of individual

blazars, despite the increased dependence on the blazar emission model this

entails.

The flux ratio versus redshift relationship for BL Lacs is therefore primarily

due to the differing intrinsic spectral characteristics of BL Lacs, rather than

from EBL absorption. This test is a reminder of the importance of a careful

consideration of the intrinsic spectral characteristics of the source populations

chosen to probe EBL absorption.

9.3.2 Constraints on EBL models from individual source

spectra

The sensitivity of the LAT over a broad energy range provides a unique op-

portunity to probe γ-ray spectra from AGNs and GRBs at 10 GeV where

EBL absorption is negligible and at Á 10 GeV where EBL absorption can

be substantial (see Fig. 3.3). Thus extrapolations of the unabsorbed flux at

low energies from individual sources to high energies, and assuming that the

intrinsic spectra do not become harder at high energies, allows us to derive

a measure of the total absorption (source in-situ and in EBL). We note that


Source z Emax(GeV)

Conv.Type

∆EE 68% ra-dius

Separation ChanceProbability

J1147-3812 1.05 73.7 front 10.7 % 0.054 0.020 7.0 104

(PKS 1144-379)

J1504+1029 1.84 48.9 back 5.4% 0.114 0.087 5.6 103

(PKS 1502+106) 35.1 back 12.4% 0.117 0.086 9.8 103

23.2 front 7.2% 0.072 0.052 5.6 103

J0808-0751 1.84 46.8 front 9.7% 0.057 0.020 1.5 103

(PKS 0805-07) 33.1 front 5.9% 0.063 0.038 2.7 103

20.6 front 8.9% 0.075 0.029 6.9 103

J1016+0513 1.71 43.3 front 11.4% 0.054 0.017 1.2 103

(CRATESJ1016+0513)

16.8 front 6.3% 0.087 0.035 8.2 103

16.1 front 7.6% 0.084 0.018 8.2 103

J0229-3643 2.11 31.9 front 10.7% 0.060 0.035 1.7 103

(PKS 0227-369)

GRB 090902B 1.82 33.4 back 10.5% 0.117 0.077 6.0 108

GRB 080916C 4.24 13.2 back 11.6% 0.175 0.087 2.0 106

Table 9.2: List of blazars and GRBs detected by the LAT which have red-shift measurements, and which constrain the EBL opacity the most. For eachsource, J2000 coordinate based name (other name), the energy of the highest-energy photon (HEP), the conversion type of the event (front or back) of theinstrument, the energy resolution, ∆EE, for 68% containment of the recon-structed incoming photon energy, and the 68% containment radius based onthe energy and incoming direction in instrument coordinates of the event, theseparation from the source and the chance probability of the HEP being fromthe galactic diffuse or isotropic backgrounds are also listed. The energy reso-lution for the GRB HEP events is taken from Abdo et al. [177] and Abdo etal. [178] using the respective lower energy bounds. The three highest-energyphotons are listed for those sources that have multiple constraining photons.

this is the only assumption made for the following methods. Furthermore,

since any intrinsic spectral curvature or internal absorption effects can not be

decoupled from EBL-caused curvature, the constraints derived below shall be

considered as conservative upper limits on the EBL-caused opacity. These are

then confronted with various EBL models. Clearly, high EBL density models

possess a higher probability of being constrained by these methods than low

density ones. In the following, we use two methods: the highest energy photon

(Section 9.3.2) and the likelihood (Section 9.3.2) methods.

Highest energy photons

A simple method to constrain a given EBL model is to calculate the chance

probability of detecting a photon with energy E ¥ Emax, where Emax is the


energy of the most energetic photon that we would expect when the source

intrinsic spectrum is folded with the optical depth from the specific EBL model

we want to test. We derive a conservative estimate of the intrinsic flux of

the source by extrapolating the unabsorbed spectrum at low energies to high

energies. We consider the LAT spectrum to be representative of the intrinsic

spectrum at energies where the EBL is supposed to absorb less than 1% of

the photons for the most opaque models. This corresponds to an energy of

around 10 GeV (down to 6 GeV for GRB 080916C at z 4.3). Best fit

spectral parameters of this “low-energy” unabsorbed spectrum were derived

for all sources of the HEP set (see Table 9.3). The spectrum is assumed to

be a power law unless a significant deviation from this shape is measured at

À 10 GeV (as is indeed observed from, e.g., FSRQs at GeV energies). This is

the case for source J1504+1029, for which a log parabola model provides the

best fit.

Iterating through the source list described in Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.2

we find the energy Emax of the highest-energy photon detected within the 68%

containment radius (using the specific P6 V3 DIFFUSE instrument response

functions for front and back events) of each source position. The resulting

Emax versus source redshift is shown in Figure 9.2 for sources with z ¡ 0.5,

and compared to the energy at which the optical depth τγγ is equal to 1 and

3 according to the various EBL models. As shown in this figure, 5 AGN have

Emax that is significantly greater pÁ 2q than the energy at which τγγ 3

for the “baseline EBL model” of Stecker et al. [255]. These 5 AGN (and 2

comparable GRBs) have emitted a number of events (hereafter highest-energy

photons or HEP) that populate a region of the Emax z phase space where

EBL attenuation effects are predicted to be significant. These (henceforth

called “HEP set”) will be used in the following sections to constrain EBL

models and to calculate the maximum amount of EBL attenuation that is

consistent with the LAT observations7.

It is possible that the high-energy photons considered here may not be

emitted in the high-redshift source and instead are originated in any of the

following background sources: Galactic γ-ray diffuse, isotropic (Extragalactic

γ-ray plus charged-particle residuals) or a nearby point source. The likelihood

7Only the highest energy photon from each source is shown in Figure 9.2. There are afew sources however with more than one constraining photon as indicated in Table 9.2.


of detecting any of these background photons within the 68% containment

radius used to find the HEP set is quantified by computing the number of

expected events within the 68% containment radius at the location of the

source as determined by the best fit background model (Galactic and isotropic

diffuse + point sources) and the instrument acceptance. The last column of

Table 9.2 shows such probability for photons in the HEP set. These chance

probabilities, although being fairly small, are non-negligible (at least in the

case of blazars) if one would like to set significant constraints on specific EBL

models by using this HEP. We later describe how this probability for the HEP

to be a background fluctuation was incorporated in our final results for this

method. For now we will assume that this HEP is indeed from the source

and we will first derive the type of constraints it allows us to set on different

EBL models. We also note that a stricter set of cuts (extradiffuse) has been

developed by the LAT team to study the Extragalactic γ-ray background [184].

Despite the decreased γ-ray acceptance we find all photons in the HEP set to

be retained when using these selection cuts.

Monte-Carlo simulations are performed in order to test a particular EBL

model with the derived intrinsic spectrum absorbed by the EBL as the Null-

hypothesis. The simulations were performed using gtobssim, one of the science

tools distributed by the Fermi science support center and the LAT instrument

team. For each simulation we define the unabsorbed spectrum of the source as

a power law (or log parabola in the case of J1504+1029) with spectral parame-

ters drawn randomly from the best-fit values (and corresponding uncertainty)

shown in Table 9.3. EBL absorption is applied according to the optical depth

values of the considered model, and finally, the position and orientation of

the Fermi satellite during the time interval described in Section 2 is used to

account for the instrument acceptance that corresponds to the observations.

The highest-energy photon from the simulated data is obtained following the

exact same cuts and analysis procedure that was used for the data.

The resulting distribution of the HEP simulated in each case (see e.g.,

Figure 9.3) is used to estimate the chance probability of detecting a photon

from the source with energy equal or greater than Emax. We produced 800, 000 and 100, 000 simulations for each of the HEP sets for AGN and

for GRBs, respectively. Assuming the HEP is indeed from the source, the


Source normalization N0

(107phphoton indexΓ

Γ, β,Eb/GeV

TS

cm2 s1 MeV1) (PL) (LP)

J1147-3812 0.570 0.081 2.38 0.09 ... 221

J1504+1029 p1.840.23q104 ... 2.36 0.03, 34638

0.09 0.01,

2.0 0.1

J0808-0751 1.212 0.078 2.09 0.04 ... 1498

J1016+0513 1.183 0.078 2.27 0.05 ... 1220

J0229-3643 0.789 0.075 2.56 0.07 ... 394

J1012+2439 0.552 0.058 2.21 0.07 ... 443

GRB090902B

146 56 1.40 0.37 ... 1956

GRB080916C

1146 199 2.15 0.22 ... 1398

Table 9.3: Parameter values of the power law (PL) fits dNdE N0pΓ 1qEΓrEΓ1

max EΓ1min s in the range Emin 100 MeV to Emax 10 GeV of

the sources (AGN and GRBs) listed in Table 9.4 except for source J1504+1029where a log parabolic parametrization (LP) dNdE N0pEEbqpΓβ logpEEbqq

has been found to be preferable over a power law fit (with ∆TS 71.9). Thespectral fits for the GRBs are performed below 6 GeV and 3 GeV for GRB090902B and GRB 080916C, respectively. The TS values are obtained througha likelihood ratio test comparing a model with background only and a modelwhere a point source was added.


probability of observing such high energy photon given the specific EBL model

tested (called PHEP ) is calculated as the ratio between the number of cases

where the HEP energy is above Emax (actually EmaxσEmax given the energy

dispersion) and the total number of simulations performed. The number of

simulations in each case was chosen to reach sufficient statistics at the tail

of the distribution where the energy of the HEP is measured. Distributions

of the HEP events from these MC simulations for GRB 080916C and GRB

090902B are shown in Figure 9.4. The open and filled histograms correspond

to the distributions using the GRB spectra without and with EBL absorption

using the “baseline model” of Stecker et al. [255].

To compute the final probability of rejection for the specific EBL model

tested (called Prejection), one needs to consider the fact that the HEP could

be a background photon. We compute the probability for this to happen in

Table 2 (Pbkg). In the end, one can fail to reject the EBL model because the

HEP might be a background event or because there is a chance for a source

photon with energy Emax not to be absorbed by the EBL so that

Prejection Pbkg PHEP p1 Pbkgq. (9.0)

In Table 9.5, we list these 3 probabilities for each of our most constraining

sources. When more than one photon is available for a given source, the prob-

abilities are combined resulting in a stronger rejection. Although PHEP can be

quite constraining, our final significance of rejection is limited by Pbkg which

is non-negligible in the case of blazars and which depends on the size of the

region around each source defined a priori to look for associated high-energy

events (68% PSF containment radius in this analysis). A larger HEP accep-

tance region (90% or 95% containment radius instead of 68%) would increase

the background probability Pbkg while also adding constraining photons to the

HEP set. On a source-by-source basis, the rejection probability goes up or

down with increasing radius depending on the number and energy of these

additional photons, but our overall result remains the same. The unbinned

likelihood method, which we describe in the next subsection (9.3.2), does not

make use of an acceptance radius, and instead makes full use of available infor-

mation in the data to systematically calculate a model rejection probability.

The analysis described in this section was applied to all sources from the


Source z Emax τpz, Emaxq τpz, Emaxq Number ofphotons

(GeV) (F08) (St06, baseline) above 15 GeV

J1147-3812 1.05 73.7 0.40 7.1 1

J1504+1029 1.84 48.9 0.56 12.2 7

J0808-0751 1.84 46.8 0.52 11.7 6

J1016+0513 1.71 43.3 0.39 9.0 3

J0229-3643 2.11 31.9 0.38 10.2 1

GRB090902B

1.82 33.4 0.28 7.7 1

GRB080916C

4.24 13.2 0.08 5.0 1

Table 9.4: Gamma-ray optical depth to HEP calculated using the EBL modelof Franceschini et al (2008; F08) in comparison to the “baseline” model ofStecker et al. [255] (St06). Also listed are the number of photons associated tothe source which have ¥ 15 GeV energy and which can potentially constrainEBL models.

HEP set. We find the “baseline” model of Stecker et al. [255] to be significantly

constrained by our observations. Column 5 of Table 9.4 shows the optical depth

of the “baseline” model of Stecker et al. [255] for the HEP events. Since the

“fast evolution” model8 of Stecker et al. [255] predicts higher opacities in the

LAT energy range at all redshifts, our constraints on this model will naturally

be higher than the ones found in Table 9.4 for the “baseline” model.

Likelihood method

This second method to constrain specific EBL models makes use of a Likelihood-

Ratio Test (LRT) technique. This approach compares the likelihood of the

Null-hypothesis model (L0) to best represent the data with the likelihood

of a competitive model (L1). The test statistic (TS) is defined as TS

8The “baseline” model considers the case where all galaxy 60µm luminosities evolvedas p1 zq3.1 up to z ¤ 1.4, non-evolving between 1.4 z 6 and no emission at z ¡ 6.In contrast, the “fast evolution” model assumes a more rapid galaxy luminosity evolution:9p1 zq4 for z 0.8, 9p1 zq2 for 0.8 z 1.5, no evolution for 1.5 z 6, and noemission at z ¡ 6. Consequently, for a given redshift the “fast evolution” model predicts ahigher γ-ray attentuation than the “baseline” model.


HEP method applied to Stecker 06 HEP RejectionSource z Energy

(GeV)Pbkg PHEP Prejection Significance

J1147-3812 1.05 73.7 7.0 104 1.2 104 8.1 104 3.2 σJ1504+1029 1.84 48.9 5.6 103 6.7 105 5.7 103

35.1 9.8 103 6.8 103 1.7 102

23.2 5.6 103 1.8 101 1.9 101

Combined Prej = 1.7 105 4.1 σJ0808-0751 1.84 46.8 1.5 103 1.9 104 1.7 103

33.1 2.7 103 3.7 103 6.4 103

20.6 6.9 103 2.5 101 2.6 101

Combined Prej = 2.8 106 4.5 σJ1016+0513 1.71 43.3 1.1 103 5.4 104 1.6 103

16.8 8.2 103 4.9 101 4.9 101

16.1 8.2 103 6.5 101 6.5 101

Combined Prej = 5.3 104 3.3 σJ0229-3643 2.11 31.9 1.7 103 8.9 105 1.8 103 2.9 σGRB090902B

1.82 33.4 2 106 2.0 104 2.0 104 3.7 σ

GRB080916C

4.24 13.2 8 108 6.5 104 6.5 104 3.4 σ

Table 9.5: Listed are the significance of rejecting the “baseline” model (Steckeret al. [255]), calculated using the HEP method as described in Section 9.3.2.For completeness, we also report individually the probability of the HEP to bea background event (Pbkg) and the probability for this HEP not to be absorbedby the EBL if it were emitted by the source (PHEP ) following Eq. 9.3.2. Forthose sources with more than one constraining photon, the individual andcombined Prejection are calculated. The “fast evolution” model by Stecker etal. [255] is more opaque and leads to an even higher significance of rejection.Applying this method to less opaque models leads to no hints of rejection sincethe probability PHEP is large in those cases (e.g. Á 0.1 for the Franceschiniet al. [211] EBL model). Note that a log parabola model was used as theintrinsic model for source J1504+1029 since evidence of curvature is observedhere even below 10 GeV (see Table 9.3).


2plogpL0q logpL1qq. Following Wilks’ theorem [264], the TS is asymptot-

ically distributed as χ2n (with n the difference in degrees of freedom between

the two models) if the two models under consideration satisfy the following

two conditions [243]: 1) the models must be nested and 2) the null-values

of the additional parameters are not on the boundary of the set of possible

parameter values.

For the LRT we use the power law intrinsic spectrum convolved with the

EBL absorption predicted by the model (τmod) we are testing, FunabspEq exprατmodpE, zqs, as the observed flux. For the Null-hypothesis we set α 1

and we compare it to an alternative model where α is left as a free parameter,

which therefore has one more degree of freedom than the Null-hypothesis. In

the absense of any flux attenuation by the EBL, α 0. Note that we allow the

normalization parameter, α to go to negative values. This choice, although

not physically motivated, allows us to satisfy the second condition mentioned

above. As a consequence the Test-Statistics can simply be converted into a

significance of rejecting the Null-hypothesis by making use of Wilks’ theorem.

Because of the lack of information on the intrinsic spectrum of a distant source

above 10 GeV, we use the (unabsorbed) ¤ 10 GeV observed spectrum as a

reasonable assumption for the functional shape of the intrinsic source spec-

trum. A simple power law was found to be a good fit to the ¤ 10 GeV data

for the sources listed in Table 9.4 except in the case of J1504+1029 where

a log-parabolic spectrum was preferred. We note that if the actual intrinsic

curvature is more pronounced than the one found with the best fit below 10

GeV, this would only make the results more constraining.

As we mentioned earlier, although we are considering all EBL models in the

literature, we find that our observations are only constraining the most opaque

ones. Figure 9.5 shows the TS value as a function of the optical depth nor-

malization parameter α, for the three most constraining blazars (J1016+0513,

J0808-0751, J1504+1029) and the two GRBs (GRBs 090902B and 080916C)

when considering the “baseline” model of [255] with the LRT method. All

sources are found to have an optical depth normalization parameter that is

consistent with α ¥ 0 at the 1σ level which is reassuring as we do not expect a

rise in the spectrum on a physical basis.?TSmax for α 1 corresponds to the


LRT Rejection SignificanceSource z pre-trial post-trial

J1147-3812 1.05 3.7σ 2.0 σ

J1504+1029 1.84 4.6σ 3.3 σ

J0808-0751 1.84 5.4σ 4.4 σ

J1016+0513 1.71 6.0σ 5.1 σ

J0229-3643 2.11 3.2σ 1.2 σ

GRB 090902B 1.82 3.6σ 1.9 σ

GRB 080916C 4.24 3.1σ 1.0 σ

Table 9.6: Significance of rejecting the “baseline” model (Stecker et al. [255]),calculated using the LRT method described in Section 9.3.2. Again, the “fastevolution” model by Stecker et al. [255] leads to a high rejection significancewith two sources (J0808-0751 and J1016+0513) with ¡ 4σ post-trial signifi-cance. The post-trial significance is computed by taking into account the factthat our analysis is considering 200 independent sources.

rejection significance for the specific model considered. The most constrain-

ing source, J1016+0513, rejects the Null-hypothesis (α 1, corresponding

to the “baseline” model of [255] in this case) with a significance of 6.0σ.

This source could also constrain the “high UV model” of Kneiske et al. (2004)

with a significance of 3.2σ although multi-trials effect substantially reduce this

significance (see Section 9.3.2).

As compared to the HEP method, the LRT method incorporates the pos-

sibility of each photon being from the background into the unbinned maxi-

mum likelihood computation. Thus separate calculations of the background

probablity and corresponding rejection probablity are not needed. Also since

the LRT method takes into account all high-energy photons rather than the

highest-energy ones in the HEP method, it gives more constraining results

for the EBL model rejection with the exception of 2 GRBs where the HEP

method gives slightly more constraining results. Finally, we note that the a

priori choice of the size of the region around each source defined to look for

associated high-energy events is a source of systematics for the HEP method

( which uses 68% PSF containment radius) while it does not affect the LRT

method.


Multi-trial effects and combined probabilities

Because the search for EBL signatures or rejection of specific EBL models is

performed on all blazars and GRBs detected by the LAT, one has to con-

sider multi-trials, which is potentially affecting our analysis. For independent

searches, as is the case here, the post-trial probability threshold for obtaining

a 4σ result is Pposttrial 1 p1 P4σq1Ntrials , where Ntrials is the number of

trials and P4σ is the 4σ probability threshold for a single search ( 6.3105).

In the present case, the LAT AGN catalog that we have used [183] includes 709

AGNs of which 200 have a sufficiently high redshift ( 100 with Á 10 GeV

photon) to allow for the testing of EBL attenuation models with their γ-ray

spectra. Only a handful of LAT GRBs were observed with sufficient statistics

to hope to constrain the EBL. In the end, we have Ntrials 200 which corre-

sponds to a post-trial probability for a 4σ result of P4σ,posttrial 3.17 107.

This corresponds to a significance of 5.11σ on an individual source which

we will therefore consider as our threshold for a 4σ post-trials rejection signif-

icance for any specific EBL model. This P4σ,posttrial threshold was reached in

case of the Stecker et al. [255] “baseline” model for sources J0808-0751 and

J1016+0513 using the LRT method. Note that J1504+1029 is only slightly

below this threshold.

Combining specific EBL model rejection probabilities from multiple sources9

we get a much higher rejection significance. For HEP probabilities the com-

bined rejection significance for the Stecker et al. [255] “baseline” model is

8.9σ ( 7.7σ without the 2 GRBs) using Fisher’s method in order to com-

bine results from independent tests of the same Null-hypothesis [210]. For

the LRT method, we add the individual likelihood profiles to derive an overall

profile from which?TSmax gives an overall significance of 11.4σ for the same

EBL model. Therefore both methods give very large rejection significances

even after taking multi-trial effects into account. Since the Stecker et al. [255]

“fast-evolution” model gives opacities larger than the “baseline model” in the

LAT range, both models can be rejected by our analysis with very high confi-

dence level. All other models can not be significantly rejected even after such

stacking procedure is applied.

9since the spectral fits of all the sources we considered in this analysis are independentto each other.


9.3.3 Opacity upper limits

Upper limits on the γ-ray optical depth have been evaluated with a method

based on the comparison between the measured energy spectrum of the source

and the unabsorbed spectrum above 10 GeV. The unabsorbed spectrum, Funabs,

is assumed to be the extrapolation of the low-energy part, E 10 GeV, of the

spectrum (FE 10), where EBL attenuation is negligible (see Fig. 3.3), to higher

energies. FE 10 is fitted with a power-law or log-parabola function, according

to the best TS value. At high energies, if no intrinsic hardening of the spec-

trum is present, the measured spectrum, Fobs, at (observed) energy E and the

unabsorbed spectrum, Funabs, are related by Eq. 9.3. The γ-ray optical depth

can therefore be estimated at any given energy as

τγγpE, zq lnrFunabspEqFobspEqs. (9.0)

Since Funabs is evaluated assuming no EBL attenuation, it gives a maximum

value. Therefore the optical depth, τγγpE, zq given by Eq. 9.3.3 could al-

ready be considered as an upper limit, assuming that the difference between

FunabspEq and FobspEq is only due to EBL effects. The fit of both Fobs and

FE 10 are carried out with a maximum likelihood analysis [233] 10.

To evaluate FE 10 we have assumed a background model including all the

point-like sources within 15 from the source under study and two diffuse

components (Galactic and extra-galactic). The Galactic diffuse emission is

modeled using a mapcube function, while a tabulated model is used for the

isotropic component, representing the extragalactic emission as well as the

residual instrumental background11. Both diffuse components are assigned a

free normalization for the likelihood fit. In the fit we have considered all the

nearby point sources within a 10 radius, modeled with a power-law with the

photon index fixed to the value taken from the 1FGL catalog [187] and the

integral flux parameter left free. The remaining point sources are modeled

with a power-law with all spectral parameters fixed.

The source under study has been fitted with a power-law and a log-parabola

with all spectral parameters free. Among the two, we have chosen the fitted

10gtlike tool in the standard Fermi LAT Science Tools package provided by the FermiScience Support Center (FSSC)

11http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html


function showing the best TS value. The result is that for all the sources

except J1504+1029 a power-law fit is preferred. From the fit results of FE 10

we have extrapolated the spectral shape to obtain FunabspEq above 10 GeV.

A different method has been used to derive the measured flux Fobs in se-

lected energy bins. The whole energy range from 100 MeV to 100 GeV is

divided in equal logarithmically spaced bins requiring in each energy bin a

TS value greater than 10: 2 bins per decade above 10 GeV for J0229-3643,

J1016+0513 and J1147-3812, 4 bins per decade for J0808-0750 and 5 bins per

decade for J1504+1029. In each energy bin the standard gtlike tool has been

applied assuming for all the point-like sources a simple power law spectrum

with photon index fixed to 2.012 The integral fluxes of all point-like sources

within 10 are left as free parameters in the fitting procedure, while the diffuse

background components are modeled as described in the previous paragraph.

In this way, assuming that in each energy bin the spectral shape can be ap-

proximated with a power law, the flux of the source in all selected energy bins

is evaluated.

Once both Funabs and Fobs are determined, the maximum γ-ray optical

depth in each energy bin can be estimated from Eq. (9.3.3). An upper limit

on τγγpxEy, zq with 95% CL in a constraining energy bin with mean energy

xEy is then calculated by propagating the parameter uncertainties in the fitted

flux13:

τγγ,UL95%CLpxEy, zq lnrFunabspxEyqFobspxEyqs 2σ. (9.0)

We compare these limits with the γ-ray optical depths predicted by various

EBL models.

In Figure 9.6 we show the upper limits (95% CL) derived at the mean

energy of the bins above 10 GeV for various objects. In the highest energy

bin the optical depth UL has been evaluated at the highest photon energy as

reported in Table 9.4. At this energy, the results of the optical depth UL at

99% CL are also reported (blue arrow). As an example, consider blazar J0808-

0751 at z 1.84 shown in the upper left plot: a larger optical depth would

require an intrinsic spectrum that at high energies lies significantly above the

12since the energy bin is small enough to assume a flat spectrum.13It has been veryfied that the statistical errors follow a Gaussian distribution. The

standard error propagation formula has then been applied.


Source z Emax τULpz, Emaxq Energy bins

10 GeV100 GeV

J1147-3812 1.05 73.7 1.33 2 bins/dec

J1504+1029 1.84 48.9 1.82 5 bins/dec

J0808-0751 1.84 46.8 2.03 4 bins/dec

J1016+0513 1.71 43.3 0.83 2 bins/dec

J0229-3643 2.11 31.9 0.97 2 bins/dec

J1012+2439 1.81 27.6 2.41 2 bins/dec

Table 9.7: Upper limits (95% c.l.) on the γ-ray optical depth for AGN inTable 9.4. The first and second column report the name of the sources and theirredshift, the third column the maximum photon energy and the fourth columnthe optical depth UL evaluated at 95% c.l. as τUL lnrFunabspEqFobspEqs 2σ., the fourth column the number of energy bins/dec (for E¡10 GeV) usedto evaluate FobspEq.

extrapolation obtained from the low energy spectrum. The figure shows that

the upper limit rules out those EBL models that predict strong attenuation.

This result is consistent with all other upper limits derived with this method

(see the other plots in Figure 9.6 and summary of the results in Table 9.7).

9.4 Discussion

Studies with the highest energy extragalactic photons seen by the Fermi LAT

primarily probe the UV and optical components of the EBL. The background

light responsible for γ-ray attenuation can evolve strongly with redshift. In

many of the models analyzed in this paper the EBL intensity can exceed

the local value by a factor of 10 or more at redshifts near the peak of star-

formation rate density. The optical depth to γ rays from extragalactic sources

is determined by integrating the EBL intensity along the line of sight to the

source from the observer.

The value of the longest wavelength photon (source frame) with which a

γ-ray emitted at zsrc with observed energy Eobs can interact is given by setting

θ π in equation 3.1:

λmax 47.5 p1 zsrcqEobs

GeV

A . (9.0)

9.4. DISCUSSION 169

The equation is used to set an upper limit on background photon wavelengths

that can contribute to the γ-ray optical depth. Limits for λmax are 7175

A for blazar J1147-3812, and 4474 A for GRB 090902B and 3286 A for GRB

080916C, based on the highest-energy γ-rays seen from these sources. In re-

ality, interactions with shorter wavelength photons are more likely and will

contribute more to the optical depth because the γ-ray redshifts during prop-

agation to Earth. The cross section peaks at approximately twice the threshold

energy which corresponds to an interaction angle of θ 90.

The results of our analysis of the highest energy γ-rays from blazars and

GRBs detected by the Fermi LAT disfavor a UV background intensity at

the level predicted both by the baseline and fast-evolution models of Stecker

et al. [255]. The LAT observations discussed here however do not constrain

the predictions of the two models at longer wavelengths. The two models

are based upon a backwards evolution model of galaxy formation. In this

scenario, the IR SED of a galaxy is predicted from its luminosity at 60 µm. The

locally-determined IR SED (at 60 µm) luminosity function is then assumed to

undergo pure luminosity evolution following a power law in p1 zq. Optical

and UV luminosities, relevant to Fermi’s extragalactic observations, are then

determined by analytic approximation to the SEDs in Salamon & Stecker

[247] and are normalized to the short wavelength portions of the IR SEDs.

These models do not include absorption of UV light by dust in star-forming

regions and the interstellar medium of galaxies, which may partially account

for the high background in this model. While this model does account for

redshift evolution in the UV-optical SEDs of galaxies, it does not allow for

any evolution in the IR emission to which these SEDs are normalized. As

mentioned by Stecker et al. [255], this is another factor which could result in

overpredicted UV emission. Emissivity at UV wavelengths is closely tied to

the global star-formation rate density. Because the models of Stecker et al.

[255] are not derived from an assumed function for the star-formation rate,

limits on the UV emissivity in this case cannot be used to directly constrain

star-formation.

We do not find that our results are conclusively in disagreement with the

‘best-fit’ model of Kneiske et al. [224]. In this models, the optical-UV EBL is

based upon a Salpeter IMF and a star-formation rate density that peaks at


z 1.25, with a value of 0.2 Md Mpc3 yr1, and falls slowly towards higher

redshift. In the high-UV model, ultraviolet flux is boosted by a factor of 4

above the level of the best-fit model, greatly enhancing the opacity for γ-rays

at energies below about 200 GeV. A star formation history of the magnitude

required to produce the background in the high-UV model would be above

essentially all estimates of the global star formation rate (see for example

Hopkins & Beacom [221]). All other EBL models are of such low density in

the UV range that they can not be constrained by the data presented in this

work. Although the results of our analysis can not yet place any stringent

upper limits on the cosmological star-formation history that are competitive

with current observational estimates, future prospects for probing low density

UV models of the EBL by means of improved methods and enlarged GeV

photon data sets may be promising.

High-energy γ rays that are absorbed by the EBL photons can also initiate

a pair cascade by subsequent Compton scattering of the CMB photons by the

pairs. In case the intergalactic magnetic field (IGMF) is very weak, so that the

pairs do not deflect out of our line of sight, this cascade radiation component

can be detectable [240]. Calculations of such cascade signatures have been car-

ried out for AGNs [see e.g. 204, 237, 206] and for GRBs [see e.g. 203, 245, 258]

and found to compensate for a large portion of the flux that is absorbed in the

EBL. If blazars or GRBs are sources of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECRs;

Waxman & Coppi [263]), then photohadronic interactions by protons during

their propagation in the background light can also induce a high-energy cas-

cade signature that would form appreciable high-energy emission, provided

the IGM magnetic field is sufficiently small [206]. However recent flux upper-

limits calculated in the Fermi LAT range from TeV blazars 1ES 0347-121 and

1ES 0229+200 constrain the IGMF to be ¡ 3 1016 G [238]. Such a strong

field reduces the cascade flux significantly (because the emission becomes es-

sentially isotropic due to the large deflection angles) and the contribution to

the observed flux is likely to be small. Furthermore, since the constraining

blazar sample consists of FSRQs only, which seem weak TeV emitters, any of

their reprocessed emission can only be small also.

An interesting possibility to reduce γ-ray attenuation by EBL has been

proposed through exotic scenarios involving oscillation between γ-rays and

9.4. DISCUSSION 171

axionlike particles, while propagating in the Galactic magnetic field, from dis-

tant sources and may produce observable signatures in the TeV range [see

e.g. 236, 251]. However the effect may not set in for typically assumed IGMF

values or likely to be too small to make up for EBL flux attenuation in the

À 100 GeV range [see e.g. 249]

In the end, using the high-energy 11-month photon data set collected by

Fermi from distant blazars and two GRBs, we have (i) placed upper limits

on the opacity of the Universe to γ rays in the 10–100 GeV range coming

from various redshifts up to z 4.3; and (ii) ruled out an EBL intensity

in the redshift range 1 to 4.3 as great as that predicted by Stecker et al.

[255] in the ultraviolet range at more than 4σ post trials in two independent

sources (blazars). The overall rejection significance is found to be ¡ 10σ

post trials therefore making this result very robust. Our most constraining

sources are blazars J1504+1029, J0808-0751 and J1016+0513 with pz, xEmaxyqcombinations of (1.84, 48.9 GeV), (1.84, 46.8 GeV) and (1.71, 43.3 GeV),

respectively. Although a likelihood ratio analysis of the latter source indicates

that the sensitivity of our analysis method is approaching the EBL flux level

of the “high UV model” of Kneiske et al (2004), multi-trial effects markedly

reduced the rejection significance. The two most constraining GRBs are GRB

090902B and GRB 080916C, both of which rule out the “baseline” EBL model

of Stecker et al. [255] in the UV energy range at more than 3σ level. The

“fast evolution” model of Stecker et al. [255] predicts higher opacities in the

LAT energy range at all redshifts, and therefore is also ruled out. Together

with the results from VHE observations (e.g., Aharonian et al. [194], Mazin &

Raue [235]) the models by Stecker et al. [255] seem now disfavored in the UV

and mid-IR energy range. We have also calculated model-independent optical

depth upper-limits τγγ,ULpz, xEmaxyq at 95% CL in the redshift z 12.1 and

Emax 28 74 GeV ranges.

As the high-energy photon data set collected by Fermi grows in the future

and more blazars and GRBs are detected at constraining energies, the pE, zqphase space that constrains τγγ will become more populated. This will provide

us with unique opportunities to constrain the opacity of the Universe to γ-

rays over a large energy and redshift range, and eventually help us further

understand the evolution of the intensity of the extragalactic background light


over cosmic time.

9.4. DISCUSSION 173

mean flux ratio

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3 FSRQ

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

F(>

10 G

eV

) /

F(>

1 G

eV

)

LSP-BL

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3 ISP-BL

0 1 2 3z

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3 HSP-BL

Figure 9.1: Flux ratio F p¥ 10 GeVqF p¥ 1 GeVq as function of redshift, in theFermi LAT energy range, for FSRQs and BL Lac populations. The horizontalsolid lines correspond to the mean ratios (0.016 (FSRQ), 0.028 (LSP-BL),0.045 (ISP-BL) and 0.099 (HSP-BL)) which were obtained by considering theindividual data points rather that the binned averages.


Redshift0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ener

gy (G

eV)

10

210

Kneiske - Best FitKneiske - High UVSalamon & Stecker (1998) - w corr.Salamon & Stecker (1998) - w/o corr.Stecker et al. (2006)Stecker et al. (2006) - Fast EvolutionFranceschini et al. (2008)Finke et al. (2009)Gilmore et al. (2009)

BL Lacs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

FSRQs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

GRBs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

Redshift0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Ener

gy (G

eV)

10

210

Kneiske - Best FitKneiske - High UVSalamon & Stecker (1998) - w corr.Salamon & Stecker (1998) - w/o corr.Stecker et al. (2006)Stecker et al. (2006) - Fast EvolutionFranceschini et al. (2008)Finke et al. (2009)Gilmore et al. (2009)

BL Lacs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

FSRQs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

GRBs Max Energy (< 68% psf)

Figure 9.2: Highest-energy photons from blazars and GRBs from differentredshifts. Predictions of γγ opacity τγγ 1 (top panel) and τγγ 3 (bottompanel) from various EBL models are indicated by lines. Photons above modelpredictions in this figure traverse an EBL medium with a high γ-ray opacity.The likelihood of detecting such photon considering the spectral characteristicsof the source are considered in the method presented in section 9.3.2.

9.4. DISCUSSION 175

Energy/GeV10 210

Num

ber o

f Sim

ulat

ions

110

1

10

210

310

410

510

46.8 GeV

Figure 9.3: Distribution of high-energy photons obtained from Monte-Carlosimulations of the source J0808-0751 with the EBL attenuation by Stecker etal. [255]. Emax and Emax σEmax (where σEmax is the energy uncertainty)are indicated by a solid and dotted vertical black lines, respectively. Theprobability of detecting a photon with energy equal or greater to EmaxσEmaxis equal to 6.8 105.


maximum energy (GeV)-110 1 10 210

# o

f re

alis

atio

n

1

10

210

310

13.2 GeV

PL

PL+EBL

maximum energy (GeV)-110 1 10 210

# o

f re

alis

atio

n

1

10

210

310

33.4 GeV

PL

PL+EBL

Figure 9.4: Distributions of the highest energy photons from simulationsperformed with estimates of our intrinsic spectra for GRB 080916C (top panel)and GRB 090902B (bottom panel), folded with EBL attenuation calculatedusing the Stecker et al. [255] baseline model. The total number of realizations(105) in both the power-law and power-law convolved with the EBL cases isthe same.

9.4. DISCUSSION 177

−0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Opacity normalization

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Test

-Sta

tist

ics

J1016+0513 (z=1.71)PKS0805-07 (z=1.84)J1504+1029 (z=1.84)GRB 090902B (z=1.82)GRB 080916C (z=4.3)

Figure 9.5: Test statistic (TS) as a function of the opacity normalizationparameter calculated from the likelihood ratio test (LRT) for J1016+0513,J0808-0751, J1504+1029 and GRBs 090902B and 080916C. The ”baseline”model of Stecker et al. [255] has been used and the rejection for this modelcan be directly read out as ∆TS between α 1 and the best fit α for thesource (horizontal dashed line). The confidence interval for the normalizationparameter can be obtained using ∆TS CL2 where CL is the confidencelevel.


Energy (MeV)410 510

γγτ

1

10

1FGLJ0808-0750 - PKS0805-07 -- Redshift: 1.84

Kneiske

Primack05Kniske_HighUV

Stecker05

Franceschini

FinkeGilmore

1FGLJ0808-0750 - PKS0805-07 -- Redshift: 1.84

Energy (MeV)410 510

γγτ

1

10

1FGLJ1504+1029 - PKS1502+106 -- Redshift: 1.84

Kneiske


Stecker05

Franceschini

FinkeGilmore

1FGLJ1504+1029 - PKS1502+106 -- Redshift: 1.84

Energy (MeV)410 510

γγτ

1

10

1FGLJ1147-3812 - PKS1144+379 -- Redshift: 1.05

Kneiske


Stecker05

Franceschini

FinkeGilmore

1FGLJ1147-3812 - PKS1144+379 -- Redshift: 1.05

Energy (MeV)410 510

γγτ

1

10

1FGLJ1016+0513 - SDSSJ101603.13+0 -- Redshift: 1.71

Kneiske


Stecker05

Franceschini

FinkeGilmore

1FGLJ1016+0513 - SDSSJ101603.13+0 -- Redshift: 1.71

Figure 9.6: Derived upper limits for the optical depth of γ-rays emit-ted at z=1.84 (J0808-0751, J1504+1029), z=1.05 (J1147-3812) and z=1.71(J1016+0513). Black arrows: upper limits at 95% c.l. in all energy bins usedto determine the observed flux above 10 GeV. Red arrow: upper limits at 95%c.l. for the highest energy photon. Blue arrow: upper limit at 99% c.l. forthe highest energy photon. The upper limits are inconsistent with the EBLmodels that predict the strongest opacity.

Chapter 10

Conclusions and future

prospects

The Fermi Large Area Telescope, jointly with the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor,

has opened a new era for high-energy astrophysics and in particular for the

study of Gamma-Ray Bursts. This thesis provides a comprehensive overview

of the Fermi observations of the prompt emission of fourteen GRBs detected

by the LAT instrument during its first year and a half of operation. In this

sample, key temporal and spectral features were revealed, in particular through

the detailed time-resolved spectroscopy performed on the four brightest bursts

in the LAT. These new observations stand as serious challenges for theories

attempting to provide a complete and coherent picture of the GRB emissions.

As a consequence, Fermi LAT observations triggered a substantial amount

of theoretical work in order to tackle specific issues faced by the standard

scenario where GRB prompt emission is produced by the acceleration and

emission of high energy particles at internal shocks in a relativistic outflow

while the afterglow emission results from its deceleration by the circumburst

medium. While no single model can provide a satisfactory explanation for all

observed features, various revisions of the internal/external shock scenario are

being investigated under the light of the GRB temporal and spectral properties

revealed by Fermi with the goal of eventually achieving a unified pictures of

the GRB phenomenon.

The most striking feature uncovered by Fermi is the time delay of the onset

179

180 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

of the high energy γ-ray emission (typically Á 100 MeV) with respect to the on-

set of the lower energy emission (typically À 1 MeV). This feature was clearly

observed in all four LAT bright bursts while faint LAT bursts observations are

consistent with such feature at the level of statistics detected (GRB 090217

being the only exception [147]). Hadronic models (e.g. proton synchrotron,

photo-hadron electromagnetic cascades), which investigate possible evidence

of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays in GRBs, could explain the late onset of

the Á 100 MeV emission by the time needed to accelerate protons (or heavier

ions) and to develop the subsequent electromagnetic cascades. However this

class of models has difficulty to reproduce the correlated variability between

the low and high energies which is observed in the Fermi lightcurves. On

the contrary, leptonic scenarios (e.g. electron synchrotron or jitter radiation

[274] in the sub-MeV regime and inverse Compton or self-Compton processes

above Á 100 MeV energies) naturally predict the temporal correlation but

have issues producing a delayed onset of the high energy emission which is

longer than a spike width (which could be the accumulation time for a target

photon field). This feature may also originate from internal absorption in the

jet which would imply a spectral curvature between the BGO and the LAT

energy ranges. Unfortunately, such curvature has not been detected or ruled

out so far mainly because the BGO detectors are background dominated at the

highest energy channels and because the LAT lacks photons with reliable en-

ergy estimation below 100 MeV. Such spectral diagnosis would however be

crucial to pin down the underlying process responsible for this feature. Future

improvement of the LAT systematics at low energy (currently being developed

in the collaboration [273]) will hopefully allow such detailed spectroscopy to

be performed.

A second important feature is an additional high energy component (mod-

eled by a power- law) which was first detected by EGRET in GRB 941017.

This additional component was clearly found in all bright LAT GRBs at the

exception of GRB 080916C which only had a marginal detection. Particularly

interesting is the fact that this power-law component was found to extrapolate

in the NaI detectors below an energy of 50 keV. This is a real challenge to ex-

plain for leptonic models under the usual Inverse Compton scattering scenario

181

although models including additional processes such as a photospheric compo-

nent may provide better agreement with these observed properties. Hadronic

models however could produce such low energy extension via synchrotron emis-

sion from secondary ee pairs produced via photo- hadron interactions.

The detection of such additional component requires a significant signal

both in the LAT and in the high energy channels of the BGO in order to

constrain the shape of the spectrum properly. The absence of such component

in faint LAT bursts is non-conclusive as it could simply be that the level

of statistics is not sufficient to detect this additional component. However,

one has to be very careful in generalizing features observed in bright LAT

GRBs to the whole GRB population as these burst represent a biased sample -

brightest and hardest GRBs - which could display peculiar features not present

in the rest of the GRB population. At the current level of statistics, the

LAT detection rate is consistent with a simple extrapolation from the sub-

MeV behavior observed by BATSE. This seems to suggest that a fair fraction

of GRBs do not display additional component that would enhance the high

energy emission significantly (as is the case for three of the four bright LAT

GRBs). However, detailed population studies will be necessary to quantify

this statement in the close future.

A third feature observed for the first time by Fermi is the clear signature

of a spectral curvature in GRB 090926A (at an energy of 1 GeV). This type

of spectral feature is even more difficult to detect than the hard powerlaw

component as it requires high statistics in the LAT up to high energies where

the curvature occurs. Distinguishing the exact shape of the curvature (ex-

ponential cutoff, broken power-law, log-parabola...) would require even more

statistics which are not available in this burst. However resolving the shape

of the spectral curvature is key to unravel the underlying physical process. If

due to internal absorption, this would be the first indirect measurement of the

bulk Lorentz factor of the jet during the prompt emission phase. A value of

Γ 200 700 was derived while for other bright LAT GRBs, the absence of

such curvature up to the highest energy detected allowed us to set stringent

constraints on the bulk Lorentz factor: Γmin Á 300 1000. The uncertainties

in the Γ measurement and lower limits come from theoretical uncertainties on

the evolution and homogeneity of the colliding shells.

182 CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

In the end, Fermi LAT revealed several clear properties of the high energy

prompt emission of GRBs (chapter 7). Although a unified picture of GRBs

has not yet emerged, the Fermi observations provide very important clues

on what some features of the model might be and are a crucial help to rule

out some theoretical interpretations and thus reduce the phase space of pos-

sible explanations of the GRB phenomenon. Answers to the pending open

questions, however, still require further observations with the Fermi LAT in-

strument of brighter GRBs as well as a sizable sample of GRBs for reliable

population studies of the high energy emission of GRBs. It is the hope that

these future observations along with theoretical efforts will lead to a better

understanding of Gamma-Ray Busts in the near future.

With their very high energy emission (typically Á 10 GeV), GRBs make

very powerful tools to constrain interesting physics. The detection of a 31

GeV photon associated with the short GRB 090510 allowed us to set the

most constraining limits on Lorentz Invariance Violation so far (chapter 8).

In particular, a linear dependence of the speed of light with energy (positive

delay) can be ruled out with high confidence (MQG Á 1.2MPlanck using the

most conservative assumption) by our observations while higher orders are still

far from being significantly constrained. Thanks to distant and bright sources

in the γ-ray regime such as GRBs and blazars, we constrained the opacity of

the optical-ultraviolet extragalactic background light (chapter 9). While no

signature of EBL absorption was found in the LAT data, we set constraints on

the total opacity at different redshift (up to z 4.3). In particular, we found

our data inconsistent at a high significance (Á 10σ) with the two most opaque

models tested which are Steckers baseline and fast evolution predictions. We

also set upper-limits on the total opacity as a function of energy for our most

constraining sources (see fig. 9.6).

Detecting GRBs at very high energy with ground-based Cherenkov tele-

scopes has proved very difficult. However, a single such observation would be

extremely valuable in many respects: investigate the effect of EBL, probe the

highest energy emitted by the prompt and afterglow emission where the LAT

is statistically limited (crucial to get a good handle on the bulk Lorentz fac-

tor of the jet for example), perform time-resolved spectroscopy with enhanced

183

statistics at very high energy (lack of statistics currently preventing us to re-

solve specific spectral shape: power-law component, exponential cutoff, broken

power-law...). Better constraints of the underlying physics of GRB emission

(internal absorption, particle energy distribution, emission processes...) would

result from such VHE GRB detection. Although the chance of placing a more

sensitive GeV telescope in orbit in the near future are small, the prospects for

very high-energy astronomy on the ground are definitely brighter. Imaging

Air Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) in particular with the next generation in-

strument CTA (Cherenkov Telescope Array) probably hold the best chances of

GRB detection thanks to its enhanced effective area and a low energy threshold

of a few tens of GeVs. Moreover, this instrument is scheduled to operate during

the lifetime of Fermi. Finally, the High Altitude Water Cherenkov Experi-

ment (HAWC), another ground TeV telescope, probably has better chances to

catch the prompt emission of GRBs thanks to its wide field-of-view and high

duty cycle compared to IACTs, although its much smaller effective area would

only make it sensitive to an extremely bright event.

Appendix A

Background estimation for

transient events

Having a good handle on the background is a crucial part of any instrument.

A first step is to achieve minimum background contribution to the overall mea-

surement while still keeping as much of the desired signal as possible. This was

the goal of section 5 where a set of different event classes where recommended

in the case of specific applications (e.g. detection, spectral analysis of high or

low flux sources) as good compromise between event rejection and signal effi-

ciency. As a second step (once a we are happy with the event selections), one

needs a precise background estimation of the experiment in order to properly

extract the signal information.

In the context of studying GRB (and more generally transient objects)

with the LAT, a good estimation of the background is useful for many different

reasons:

• Estimation of the significance of the detection of a transient event such

as the prompt or afterglow emission of a GRB, flares from sources such

as Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters or blazars (see section 6.5).

• Computation of upper-limits in the case of non-detection by the LAT

• Perform spectral analysis with a proper description of the background

level as a function of energy.

• Perform blind searches for transient emissions.

These are critical tasks that cannot be performed in any accurate way with-

out any proper description of the background level for a particular transient

184

A.1. ESTIMATING BACKGROUND LEVEL DURING A TRANSIENT EMISSION185

observation (at the exception of the spectral analysis of bright bursts for which

background contamination is fairly negligible). At the begining of the mission,

much effort was put into developing a tool that could accurately estimate the

background for short time periods, for any position of the spacecraft and at

any position in the sky. I myself pioneered a work in this area and provided

help in the development of the subsequent project. The goal of this section is

to describe the tool that is used to perform accurate estimation of transient

background1.

A.1 Estimating background level during a tran-

sient emission

An issue with the estimation of background on short time-scale occurs when

the background is significantly fluctuating with time. And this is very much

the case for the LAT instrument in particular for the transient event selection

which is used for observation of short transient objects. The instantaneous rate

of LAT background events from a source depends strongly on the geomagnetic

coordinates at the location (see figure A.1) of the spacecraft and the off-axis

angle of the source (see figure 4.5). These dependencies can cause short-term

fluctuations of the background rate that can be as large as a factor of two. For

long-term observations these fluctuations average out, however for short-term

observations (seconds to several tens of minutes) they are important.

One possible approach to derive background during transient sources is the

so called ’on-off technique’. The idea behind it is to measure the background

level at the source location just before and after the transient emission where

the absence of signal is certain or alternatively during the transient emission

but in a slightly offset location of the sky (notice that the instrument needs

to have localization capabilities to do that). And one could of course perform

both of these approach at the same time. Let us know mention some potential

issues with this ’on-off technique’:

1Vlasios Vasileiou is the person that developped the background estimator tool whichis now a standard tool for LAT transient analysis in the Fermi team. The description ofthe inner working of the background estimator in this appendix is actually mostly based onVlasios’ own writing.

186APPENDIX A. BACKGROUND ESTIMATION FOR TRANSIENT EVENTS

Figure A.1: All sky transient background as a function of time. Notice thelarge fluctuations (up to a factor of two) as the spacecraft orbits around theearth and changes geomagnetic latitude.

• The background level in the off-source region needs to be a good repre-

sentation of the background level in the on-source region (after proper

re-scaling of the off-source background measurement to the on-source

window with the factor ∆TonΩon∆ToffΩoff

where (∆Ton, Ωon) and (∆Toff , Ωoff )

are the time window and solid angle of the on-source and off-source re-

gion respectively)

• Enough statistics needs to be accumulated to have an accurate mea-

surement of the background level. This is an issue in particular for

low-background measurement

• The background region should not be contaminated by the signal you

are trying to measure as this would result in an overestimation of your

background level and thus an underestimation of the measured signal.

The first bullet is particularly difficult when the background level is vary-

ing rapidly. A way around it is to establish a proper extrapolation of the

background level in the off-source region into the on-source region. This is

in-fact the strategy adopted for the GBM detectors for which a measurement

of the varying background before and after the burst is performed and a poly-

nomial fit to the data allows to establish a good estimation of the time-varying

background in the on-source region.

In the case of the LAT instrument, the background rate is a function of

A.1. ESTIMATING BACKGROUND LEVEL DURING A TRANSIENT EMISSION187

many parameters and can vary by more than a factor of two, depending on the

observational conditions. For example, there is a strong dependence of the CR

background rate on the geomagnetic coordinates at the location of the space-

craft. Furthermore, the background rate also depends on the burst position

in instrument coordinates, because the LAT’s acceptance varies strongly with

the inclination angle. For these reasons, it is not straightforward to estimate

the expected amount of background during the GRB emission using off-source

regions around the trigger time, since the spacecraft will have moved to regions

of different geomagnetic coordinates, and the inclination angle of the region of

interest will have changed significantly.

In the case of the LAT instrument, the background level is very low with an

all sky rate of 2 Hz for transient events which corresponds to 1 background

event in a 10 region-of-interest every 10 sec (this is very crude estimate as

it strongly depends on the location of the spacecraft and the source location

in the instrument coordinate). In order to accumulate enough statistics, we

would need to integrate over long period of times or/and in large region of

the sky surrounding the source position. However, the Fermi observatory is

moving at a rate of 4/ minute around the earth which is also the rate

of rotation of the pointing direction of the LAT boresight. The effective area

being strongly dependent with the angle to the LAT boresight (even for cosmic-

rays which constitute a large fraction of the transient background), the time

of integration can not be arbitrarily large. And in most situation (see GRB

080825C in section 6.5 for a lucky situation), it will not be possible to apply

this technique in order to derive the background level during the time of source

emission.

And alternative approach is to make use of past data where the instrument

was in simular conditions. If enough data have been stored, one can accumulate

enough statistics in order to reach the desired level of statistics for accurate

background estimation. This is the approach that we used to develop our

background estimator tool.


A.2 Modelisation of the LAT background for

transient events

The background-estimation tool can estimate the background for observations

of any duration and from any direction in the celestial sphere (including the

galactic plane). It can provide estimates for both past and future observations

and works with the S3, Transient and Diffuse LAT data classes. The estimates

are provided versus the energy and have an accuracy of 15%. The tool is

currently available to only the members of the LAT collaboration, however it

is planned to be included in the Science Tools and released to the public.

The gamma-ray component of the background from some direction in the

sky depends only on the exposure at that direction, while the Cosmic-Ray (CR)

component of the background also depends on the geomagnetic coordinates of

the spacecraft during that observation. For that reason, these two components

are estimated separately using two different techniques.

A.2.1 ’Cosmic-ray’ background

An integral part of the background estimation is the calculation of the all-sky

cosmic-ray background for each second of the observation under considera-

tion. The all-sky background is composed of multiple components; cosmic

rays, gamma-rays from point and extended sources, gamma-rays from the dif-

fuse galactic and extra-galactic emissions, etc. The relative contributions of

these component may vary depending on which part of the galaxy the LAT is

observing, and on the properties of the earth’s magnetic field at the location

of the spacecraft.

The cosmic-ray all-sky background rate (RCR,allsky) depends on the prop-

erties of the earth’s magnetic field at the location of the spacecraft. A param-

eter that describes the local magnetic field and is appropriate for estimating

the cosmic-ray background rate is McIlwain’s L parameter (McIlwainL). The

backgroung estimator uses the pre-calculated function RCR,allsky (McIlwainL)

to estimate the all-sky cosmic-ray rate RCR,allsky,obsptq for each second of an

observation obs described by a McIlWainLobsptq.Special care has been taken to avoid the inclusion of gamma-rays from the

galactic plane during this calculation. Only data taken when the LAT +z axis

A.2. MODELISATION OF THE LAT BACKGROUND FOR TRANSIENT EVENTS189

Figure A.2: All-sky CR-background rate for transient class events with ener-gies 1GeV versus the McIlwain L coordinate of the location of the spacecraft.

was pointing to a galactic latitude |PtBz| ¡ 70 were used. This way the

galactic plane was observed from an off-axis angle that was large enough (or

equivalently the effective-area was small enough) that the contamination from

galactic-plane gamma-rays to be considerably reduced.

As mentioned above, the all-sky background is composed of many compo-

nents with the cosmic-ray component dominating. The second strongest com-

ponent is the gamma-ray component from the galactic plane. The galactic-

latitude cut applied above (|PtBz| ¡ 70) did reduce that second largest

(galactic-plane gamma-ray) component, but did not reduce the gamma-ray

component that is present at high galactic latitudes (extra-galactic point sources,

high-latitude galactic sources, galactic and extra-galactic diffuse). For that

reason, when I refer to the ”cosmic-ray all-sky background” I should more

precisely refer to the ”all-sky background minus a big fraction of the galactic-

plane background”. The difference between these two backgrounds is small.

The RCR,allsky (McIlwainL) fits for each of the 15 energy bins are shown

below. The first (underflow) histogram corresponds to all the E 20 MeV

events, and the last (overflow) histogram corresponds to all the E ¡ 300

GeV events. The overflow and underflow histograms are only shown here for

reference; estimates for these two energy ranges are produced by the estimator

but are not shown in the final result.

Using the function RCR,allsky (McIlwainL), the code can estimate the all-

sky cosmic-ray background of an arbitrary observation. The next step is to

calculate from which part of the celestial sphere these cosmic-ray events came

from. Here, an assumption is made that the theta and phi distributions of


cosmic-ray events are constant independently on the McIlwainL parameter,

or the direction the LAT is pointing to. Based on that assumption, these

distributions produced from a sample of the data can be used as probability

distribution functions for a generic cosmic-ray event to have a specific theta

and phi. Because the theta and phi distributions also depend on the energy,

these distributions are produced for different energy bins. Also, because the

cross section of the LAT is square (instead of circular), the theta distribution

also depends on the phi angle (the theta distribution extends to higher values

for phis that point towards the corners of the LAT). For that reason the theta

distributions are also produced versus theta.

For the theta distribution, in order to reduce the contamination from

galactic-plane gamma-rays, only data taken when the LAT was pointing to

a galactic latitude |PtBz| ¡ 70 were used. With such a cut, a small amount

of galactic-plane gamma-rays is still present at the tail of the zenith-angle

distribution.

The way a (theta/phi) pair is generated by the code is the following:

A phi is sampled from the phi distribution of the energy bin under consider-

ation A theta is sampled from a theta distribution appropriate for the sampled

phi and the energy under consideration. The zenith angle of the (theta/phi)

sampled pair is calculated. If the zenith angle is over the zenith-angle cut

then another pair is sampled. The zenith-angle calculation uses the directions

of the Earth’s Zenith and the LAT’s +Z axis for the specific second of the

observation simulated.

A.2.2 γ-ray background

Using the information calculated above the code can calculate the amount of

cosmic-ray background arriving from each direction of the celestial sphere dur-

ing an arbitrary observation. The next step is to calculate how much gamma-

ray background is also expected to be detected during that observation. To

accomplish that, a map that contains the amount of gamma-ray background

per unit of exposure is needed. First, a skymap is created by the reconstructed

directions of the events included in the months-long analysed dataset. Then,

a map containing the simulated directions of cosmic-ray events for the same

dataset is created. The difference of these two maps (the ”residual map”)


Figure A.3: Residual-over-background maps for each of the 15+2 energy bins.The first (underflow) map corresponds to all the 20 MeV events, and thelast (overflow) map corresponds to all the ¡ 300 GeV events.

shows the amount of accumulated gamma-ray signal during that period. By

dividing the residual map with a map that shows the exposure of the analysed

data set, a new map called the ”residual-over-exposure” map is created. The

gamma-ray background of an arbitrary observation can be calculated by mul-

tiplying the residual-over-exposure map with the exposure that corresponds

to that observation.

The residual-over-background maps for each of the 15+2 energy bins are

shown in figure A.3. The first (underflow) map corresponds to all the E 20MeV events, and the last (overflow) map corresponds to all theE ¡ 300GeV

events. The overflow and underflow maps are only shown here for reference;

estimates for these two energy ranges are produced by the estimator but are

not shown in the final result.

A.2.3 Putting it all together

The estimation in the end is the sum of a cosmic-ray and a gamma-ray com-

ponent:

• The estimation of the first component initially involves the calculation of

the all-sky cosmic-ray rate, for each second of an observation, using its

dependence on the McIlwain L parameter at the location of the spacecraft

at that second. Then, the amount of cosmic-rays from each direction of

the celestial sphere is estimated using the theta and phi distributions

of cosmic rays (calculated from real data) as probability distribution

functions.


• The second gamma-ray component is estimated by multiplying a pre-

calculated map that contains the amount of gamma-ray background per

unit of exposure by the exposure of the observation under consideration.

The above process is repeated for a number of (30-30-20) energy bins loga-

rithmically spaced in the (20-50-80)MeV-300GeV range for the (S3, transient,

diffuse) class. The calculation requires some pre-calculated data that come

with the code. Details on how these data were produced can be found in the

next chapter. The detailed steps involved in the background estimation are

the following:

• Step 1. Calculation of the all-sky cosmic-ray rate RCR,allsky

(McIlwainL): The code breaks the observation under consideration in

one-second time segments. For each segment, it calculates the all-sky

cosmic-ray rate based on the value of McIlwain L (for that segment)

and the pre-calculated dependence of the all-sky cosmic-ray rate on that

parameter. Because the code uses a ZenithTheta 90 cut to reject the

earth’s albedo, a fraction of the sky is almost always (depending on the

rocking angle) excluded by that cut. For that reason the ”all-sky” rate

at each moment is somewhat smaller than the true all-sky rate of the

case of no ZenithTheta cut. The amount of rate reduction depends on

the rocking angle (higher rocking angle Ñ more rate decrease) and the

distribution of inclination angles for CR background events (see map be-

low). The all-sky rate used by the code is the correct reduced rate that

takes into account the fraction of the FOV removed by the ZenithTheta

cut.

• Step 2. Calculation of the cosmic-ray rate from a specific direc-

tion of the celestial sphere: For each one-second time segment, the

cosmic-ray background from each direction of the celestial sphere is cal-

culated. The code uses the pre-calculated distributions of theta and phi

for cosmic-ray background events as probability distribution functions,

and the pointing information of the LAT (latitude and longitude that

the LAT +z axis points to - calculated from PtRaz/PtDecz) to distribute

the cosmic-ray background events to directions on the celestial sphere.

The ZenithTheta angle of all generated events is also calculated and a


ZenithTheta 90 cut is applied. A skymap in galactic coordinates is

filled with the resulting simulated events. That map contains the esti-

mated amount of cosmic-ray background for the simulated observation.

• Step 3. Calculation of the gamma-ray background: The exposure

of the observation under consideration is calculated using the Science

Tools. Then, a map that contains the amount of gamma-ray background

per unit of exposure is multiplied by the exposure of the observation. The

produced map contains the estimated amount of gamma-ray background

for that observation.

• Step 4. Calculation of the background map: A background map

is created by adding the cosmic-ray and gamma-ray background maps

calculated above.

• Step 5. Calculation of the background from some area of the

celestial sphere: The contents of the background map are integrated

over a circular ROI. The radius of the ROI can be either provided by the

user or calculated automatically. For the second case, the ROI radius

depends on the PSF and the localization error of the ROI’s center. The

variables Containment and LocalizationError found in the GRBConfig

files set these two parameters. The automatically-calculated ROI ra-

dius is equal to the radius that contains a fraction Containment of the

LAT’s transient-class PSF and the LocalizationError added in quadra-

ture. The integration does not happen by simply approximating the cir-

cular ROI with the rectangular bins of the skymap. Instead, the amount

of background per steradian from each direction on the celestial sphere

is initially calculated, and a non-binned integration over the ROI is then

performed.

Appendix B

Methodology for joint

LAT/GBM spectroscopy

B.1 Forward-folding technique

The interaction of a gamma-ray with the NaI, BGO or LAT instruments

(through photoelectric effect, compton scattering and pair production) is a

complicated process where it is not possible to have a one-to-one correspon-

dence between the energy of an incident photon and the energy measured

by the detector. Indeed given the true energy and direction of a gamma-ray

photon, the observed energy (derived from the instrumental observables in

the detector) will have a statistical dispersion with a width that represents

the finite energy resolution of the instrument. It is important to note that

this dispersion originates from the statistical nature of the interaction of each

photon with the detector and is therefore a fundamental limitation of any in-

strument. In the case of Fermi instruments, the energy resolution is found at

a level of 10% for the NaI, BGO and LAT instruments1. As a consequence,

the reconstruction of the true incoming energy spectrum of a source from the

interaction parameters measured by the instrument is a definite challenge. The

detected count spectrum cannot be simply inverted into a measured photon

spectrum since the energy of a single photon cannot be deduced from the

energy of its observed properties of interaction.

1The energy dependent resolution of the LAT instrument can be found at the followingadress: http : www glast.slac.stanford.edusoftwareISglast lat performance.htm

194

B.1. FORWARD-FOLDING TECHNIQUE 195

In case a lot of counts are observed for a particular source, the incident spec-

trum can be unfolded with certain limitations. Several direct inversion tech-

niques have been proposed [107], but practitioners have generally not found

them to be very useful. Sometimes the fitted photon function is used to scale

the count rate data points into what appear to be photon flux points. But

these must be treated with great caution since what appear to be data points

are actually model dependent. For this reason, the reality of a spectral feature

should never be judged on a plot of deconvolved photon flux.

Instead, the ‘forward-folding’ deconvolution procedure is generally recom-

mended procedure [108]. This technique assumes a photon spectral form and

compares it to the data by propagating it through a reliable model of your

instruments. A model photon spectrum is represented with a parameterized

function and is converted into a model count spectrum in the instrument us-

ing the model of the detector which is usually given the name of ’Instrument

Response Function’ (IRF). This ’forward-folding’ of the source model into the

IRF provides an expectation for the number of counts in the different instru-

ment channels which allows direct comparison of the model and the observed

count spectra.

A reliable description of the instrument response to incoming gamma-

rays can be obtained via Monte-Carlo simulations and on-the-ground (before

launch) and in-flight calibrations. Continuous in-flight verifications are per-

formed to make sure that the instrument description used for Fermi analysis

are reliable.

The model description of the detector response to an incident gamma-ray

spectrum are contained into the IRF which can be factored into 3 different

components:

Rpε1, p1, ε, pq Aeff pε1, p1q PSF pp1, ε, pq Dpε1, ε, pq

where ε (ε1), p (p1) are the true (measured) energy and direction of the

incoming photon respectively. Aeff is called the effective area and is the cross-

section of the LAT for detecting an incident photon with energy ε and direction

p. PSF and D represents the point spread function and energy dispersion

which are both probability distribution functions. Note that the PSF term

196APPENDIX B. METHODOLOGY FOR JOINT LAT/GBM SPECTROSCOPY

is only relevant for an instrument with event-by-event localization capability

like the LAT. Therefore only the LAT IRF contains this term as the GBM

instruments only record counts in energy channels.

Assuming an input photon spectrum Spε, pq one can derive the expected

measured count spectrum using the knowledge on the instrument response:

Sj »j

dε1»ROI

dp1»d

εdpRpε1, p1, ε, pqSpε, pq

where Sj is the observed number of counts in the energy channel j. This

predicted value of observed counts in channel j can be directly compared to

the actual observed counts in the data Nj.

Note that the source spectrum and instrument response have been inte-

grated over the spatial Region-Of-Interest (ROI) used for the analysis. This

integration is not needed for the GBM which does not have event-by-event

spatial reconstruction capability. Because the LAT PSF is strongly energy

dependent (see fig. 4.5), the region-of-interest have been chosen to be also

strongly energy dependent and based on the 95% containment radius. Details

on this spatial selection are given in section 6.

B.2 Statistical hypothesis testing

From experimental data, one is interesting in deriving a theoretical under-

standing of the particular phenomenon under investigation. It is therefore

crucial to develop a reliable framework in order to quantitatively evaluate the

capacity of specific theoretical models to provide a satisfying representation

of the our observation. Statistical hypothesis testing is a key technique of fre-

quentist statistical inference to approach this issue. The idea revolves around

the assumption of a null-hypothesis which will be confronted to the data. A

test statistics will serve as a tool to determine the degree of similarity between

the null-hypothesis model and the data.

χ2 and likelihood are well-known example of such test-statistics. Because

of the low detection rate and the extent of the LAT point-spread function, a

specific statistical technique is required to analyse LAT data. Likelihood (first

intruduced by [109]) is the predominant LAT point-source analysis method

B.2. STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING 197

and is used to quantify the relative extent to which the LAT data support a

statistical hypothesis. In case of joint LAT/GBM analysis we still prefered to

use a maximum likelihood procedure as the χ2 test statistics usually breaks

down for low number of counts2.

Specifically the likelihood is the joint probability of the observed data given

the hypothesis. In case of binned spectral fitting, this probability is easy to

compute:

LikelihoodpData|Modelq ΠiMNi

i eMi

Ni

where Mi and Ni are the predicted number of counts and the actual number

of counts in energy channel i.

Parameter estimation is performed by estimating the value of the parame-

ters that maximizes the likelihood. Hence the expression ’method of maximum

likelihood’. The free parameters of the model considered are varied until the

likelihood is maximized. This provides the best fit function for the specific

spectral form assumed. In order to derive uncertainties on the free spectral

parameters, one can use the profile likelihood method which will be described

after the likelihood ratio (LRT) test has been introduced.

The idea behind the LRT is to compare quantitatively how well different

models can account for the observed data. One naively would think that the

model with the highest likelihood should be prefered but if this was the case,

models with numerous degrees of freedom would have a definitive advantage.

The LRT (introduced by [110]) is specifically designed for quantitative model

comparison. The likelihood ratio is the likelihood of the null hypothesis for

the data divided by the likelihood of the alternative hypothesis for the same

data:

LRT LH1LH0

[111] established a very useful expression for the likelihood ratio in the null-

hypothesis case (meaning if the null-hypothesis is true) that is asymptotically

exact. He demonstrated that TS 2 logpLH1LH0q (where the likelihood

are computed for the best fit models) is asymptotically distributed as χ2n in

2https : astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.govXSPECwikilow count spectra


the null-hypothesis with n the number of additional degrees of freedom that

are optimized for the alternative hypothesis. The application of likelihood to

photon counting experiments was described by [112]. The likelihood method

was applied to many experiments and in particular to EGRET data [113].

In order for the TS to distribute as χ2n the two models under consideration

must satisfy the following 2 conditions [114]: 1) the null-hypothesis model

must be nested within the more complicated alternative model meaning that

the simpler model must be obtainable by setting the extra n parameters of

the alternative model to specific values and 2) the null-values of the additional

parameters should not be on the boundary of the set of possible parameter

values. It is not unusual for the alternative and null hypothesis not to follow

one or both of these conditions in which case, strictly speaking, Wilks’ theorem

cannot apply, despite its common use in the literrature.

If the required conditions cannot be matched in order to simply apply

Wilks’ theorem to convert the test statistics into a quantitative probability for

the alternative hypothesis to better describe the data than the null hypothesis,

another procedure needs to be adopted wich is quantitatively correct although

usually more intensive to carry out. This procedure makes use of Monte Carlo

simulations of the particular experiments you are interested in. Using reliable

description of your experiments one simulates the null hypothesis considered

in order to derive the distribution of the test statistics used (in this case the

likelihood ratio). The number of times the test statistics is higher than the

measured value will provide an estimate of the significance of the alternative

model over the null-hypothesis model. Not to be statistically limited, enough

simulations needs to be produced in order to have a reliable estimate of the

chance probability to obtain the test statistics measured on the actual data.

For high confidence detection of spectral feature, this requires extremely in-

tensive simulations which is usually not possible to perform. A 5σ detection

would for example correspond to a 5.73 107 probability therefore requiring

several tens of millions of simulation to reach the desired level of accuracy. In

case one would like to use the Wilks’ theorem anyway, one safety cross-check

that should be performed is that the test statistics distribution is indeed fairly

close to a χ2n distribution. This is of course not sufficient since one is usually

interested in the tail of this distribution which requires intensive simulations

B.2. STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING 199

as mentioned above but is at least better than nothing.

It is important to realize here a limitation of the LRT method in that it will

never tell you if a spectral model is the most appropriate model to describe

your data. The only thing it can do is compare models and since the range

of possible models is infinite, the task of demonstrating the superiority of one

model over all others is hopeless. If we can never prove a fit to be superior in

an absolute sense, how is one suppose to approach the model fitting problem?

The answer is two-fold: by viewing the problem as one of statistical model

comparison and by using scientific judgment. The statistical approach used is

model comparison as described above and a potential new spectral feature is

tested against the conventional spectral model adopted and we ask whether

the fitting statistic (maximum likelihood in our case) is sufficiently improved to

convince us of the reality of the spectral feature. In principle, to demonstrate

the existence of a spectral feature one must show that it is significant over

any continuum model. But scientific judgment can be used to limit the space

of trial continuum models to all ’reasonable’ models. Currently, the most

popular continuum model adopted to describe GRB prompt emission is the

four-parameter ’Band’ function [8]. This function fits the keV-MeV gamma-

ray data quite well. Most of the popular simpler models can be represented

as special cases of the Band function; depending on the signal-to-noise ratio

and energy range of a spectrum, it may not be possible to demonstrate that

the four-parameter Band function provides a statistically better fit compared

to a simpler model. And therefore it may be sufficient to use just the Band

function as the set of all reasonable continuum models. We will therefore use

it as our null-hypothesis in the subsequent analysis.

Interestingly, an analysis of data extending below 20 keV indicates that in

some cases the GRB function may fail in the X-ray range (Preece et al. 1996):

additional low-energy spectral component below 20 keV for 15% of BATSE

bursts.. We will see that the Fermi GBM/LAT data help shed some light on

this finding. Also worthwhile to mention is the work by [115] which found a

significant improvement in the spectral fitting of BATSE bursts when using a

blackbody spectrum overlayed by a powerlaw component dominant in the low

and high energy regime.

A final consideration when considering the possibility of a new spectral


feature on a large number of spectra from a large number of GRBs is to

correct the significance for the possibility to mimick the spectral feature purely

by chance. This must be allowed for in calculating the overall significance of

a possible spectral feature by adjusting the threshold of the minimum test

statistics required to be convinced of the reality of the spectral feature (multi-

trial effect already discussed in section 6.5).

The preceding discussion is based on the assumption that the instrument

works correctly, that the computer model of the detector is sufficiently accu-

rate, and that the errors in the observed spectrum arise solely from Poisson

fluctuations in the arrival of photons and their interaction in the detector. Sys-

tematic errors are always a concern in such study and a precise investigation

of their effect must be carried out. We describe our investigation of systematic

uncertainties for spectral analysis in section 7.3.3.

In summary, the steps to demonstrate the existence of an unknown spectral

feature are:

Convolve the model spectra using the forward-folding technique to show

the model fit and the data in units of counts per energy channels.

Test the necessity of a spectral feature by comparing fits with and with-

out spectral feature using the LRT

Test the significance of the spectral feature against all ’reasonable’ con-

tinuum models

If a large number of spectra have been examined, consider the increased

probability of a chance fluctuation and appropriately degrade the signif-

icance of the detection of a spectral feature on a candidate

B.3 Spectral fitting tools for joint GBM/LAT

analysis

We performed the joint spectral fitting of GBM and LAT, using the tool RM-

FIT version 3.2 [106, 144].

The Fermi GRB group makes use of RMFIT as its designated tool to carry

out detailed spectral analysis of the prompt gamma-ray emission observed by

the NaI, BGO and LAT instruments. This tool has been designed by the GBM

team building upon the thorough experience aquired with the spectral analysis

B.3. SPECTRAL FITTING TOOLS FOR JOINT GBM/LAT ANALYSIS201

Figure B.1: GRB 080825C time-integrated spectrum

of BATSE and EGRET bursts. It is written in Fortran/IDL and is used

through a Graphical User Interface which allows to interactively perform all

the needed steps involved in detailed spectroscopy of the NaI, BGO and LAT

data and perform joint fit analysis. RMFIT uses the forward-folded technique

described above and both the chi-square and likelihood statistics have been

implemented. The likelihood statistics being used for joint fitting between the

GBM and the LAT instruments because of the inherent low statistics of the

LAT data. RMFIT provides a variety of spectral models like simple power-law,

Band function, blackbody spectrum, Comptonized model, exponential cut-off

which can be additively and multiplicatively combined. As an example, figure

B.1 represents the time-integrated spectrum of GRB 080825C along with the

best fit Band function found (solid line).

Because RMFIT does not support easy scriptability and simulation capa-

bility is not fully operational yet, the spectral fitting tool XSPEC3 has been

used for specific analysis involving heavy simulation and fitting of multiple

spectra. We have found necessary to use this tool as the use of the GUI of

RMFIT for such analysis would have been an endless task. RMFIT develop-

pers are working on making available a working scriptability and simulation

capability in the close future which will be quite useful. In each of those cases,

the consistency of RMFIT and XSPEC results was of course verified.

3http : heasarc.gsfc.nasa.govdocsxanaduxspec

Appendix C

Gamma-ray Bursts as

Cosmological Tools

C.1 Introduction

The change in our understanding of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) in less than a

decade has been unprecedented. We have gone from groping for ways to de-

termine their distances (from solar system to cosmological scales) to attempts

to use them as cosmological probes. Observations by instruments on board

a series of satellites starting with BeppoSAX and continuing with HETE, IN-

TEGRAL and Swift, have been the primary source of this change. The higher

spatial resolution of these instruments has allowed the measurement of red-

shifts of many well-localized GRBs, which has in turn led to several attempts to

discover some emission characteristics which appears to be a “standard candle”

(SC for short), or shows a well defined correlation (with a small dispersion)

with another distance independent measurable characteristic. One can use

such relations to determine the distances to GRBs in a manner analogous to

the use of the Cepheid variables. Example of this are the lag-luminosity and

variability-luminosity relations (Norris et al 2000, Norris 2002, Fenimore &

Ramirez-Ruiz 2000, Reichart et al 2001) which were exploited for determining

some cosmological aspects of these sources (Lloyd, Fryer & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002,

Kocevski & Liang 2006) using the methods developed by Efron & Petrosian

(1992, 1994, 1999). More recently there has been a flurry of activity dealing

with the observed relation between the peak energy Ep of the νFν spectrum

202

C.2. STANDARD CANDLE? 203

and the total (isotropic) gamma-ray energy output Eiso (Ep9Eηiso, η 0.6)

predicted by Lloyd et al. (2000, LPM00) and established to be the case by

Amati et al. (2002) (see also Lamb et al. 2004, Attiea et al 2004). Simi-

larly Ghirlanda et al. (2004a) has shown a correlation with smaller dispersion

between Ep and the beaming corrected energy Eγ (Ep9Eη1γ , η1 0.7) where:

Eγ Eiso p1 cospθjetqq2

(C.0)

and θjet is the half width of the jet.

These are followed by many attempt to use these relations for determin-

ing cosmological parameters (Dai et al. 2004,Ghirlanda et al. 2004b, 2005

[Gea05], Friedman & Bloom 2005, [FB05]). There are, however, many uncer-

tainties associated with the claimed relations and even more with the suggested

cosmological tests. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the utility of

GRBs as cosmological tools either as SCs or via some correlation. In the next

section we review the past and current status of the first possibility and in

§3 we discuss the energy-spectrum correlation and whether it can be used for

cosmological model parameter determination. Finally in §4, we address the

question of cosmological luminosity and rate density evolution of GRB based

on the existing sample with known redshifts.

C.2 Standard Candle?

The simplest method of determining cosmological parameters is through SCs.

Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) are a good example of this. But currently their

observations are limited to relatively nearby universe (redshift z 2). Galaxies

and active galactic nuclei (or AGNs), on the other hand, can be seen to much

higher redshifts (z ¡ 6) but are not good SCs. GRBs are observed to similar

redshifts and can be detected to even higher redshifts by current instruments.

So that if there were SCs they can complement the SNIa results. In general

GRBs show considerable dispersion in their intrinsic characteristics. The first

indication that GRBs might be SCs came from Frail et al. (2001) observation

showing that for a sample of 17 GRBs the dispersion of the distribution of

Eγ is significantly smaller than that of Eiso. The determination of Eγ requires

a well defined light curve with a distinct steepening. The jet opening θjet

204APPENDIX C. GAMMA-RAY BURSTS AS COSMOLOGICAL TOOLS

depends primarily on the time of the steepening and the bulk Lorentz factor,

but its exact value is model dependent and depends also weakly on Eiso and

the density of the background medium

θjet 0.101 radiantbreak1 day

38 η

0.2

18 n

10 cm3

181 z

2

38 Eiso1053 ergs

18,

(C.0)

In Figure C.1 we show the distribution of Eiso and Eγ for 25 pre-Swift GRBs

(mostly compiled in FB05). As evident, there is little difference between the

two distributions (except for their mean values) and neither characteristics is

anywhere close to being a SC.

We have calculated the jet angle θjet (from equation C.2) for 25 pre-Swift

GRBs with relatively well defined tbreak. Assuming a gamma-ray efficiency η 0.2 and a value of circum burst density estimated from broadband modeling

of the lightcurve when available (otherwise we use the default value of n 10

cm3).

Unfortunately fewer than expected Swift GRBs have optical light curves

and their X-ray light curves show considerable structure (several breaks and

flaring activity) with several GRBs showing no sign of jet-break or beaming

(Nousek et al. 2006). This has brought the whole idea of jet breaks and

calculating Eγ into question. The upshot of this is that Swift Eγ, like Eiso also

has a broad distribution extending over two decades. Thus, any cosmological

use of GRBs must include the effects of the breadth of the distributions1.

C.3 Correlations

When addressing the correlation between any two variables, one should dis-

tinguish between a one-to-one relation and a statistical correlation. In general

the correlation between two variables (say, Ep and Eiso) can be described by a

bi-variate distribution ψpEp, Eisoq. If this is a separable function, ψpEp, Eisoq φpEisoqζpEpq, then the two variables are said to be uncorrelated. A correlation

1It should be also noted that there is an observational bias in favor of detecting smallerjet angles (i.e. earlier jet-breaks), so that the population as a whole (including those withvery late jet-breaks) will have even a broader distribution. Note also that a SC Eγ meansthat the Ghirlanda relation would have an index η1 0

C.3. CORRELATIONS 205

Figure C.1: Distribution of Eiso and Eγ for 25 pre-Swift GRBs with evidencefor a jet-break and beaming. Eγ distribution is shifted by about two orders ofmagnitudes compared to Eiso distribution due to the beaming factor correction.However the dispersion of the two distribution are very similar (σEiso 0.68,σEγ 0.52) and broad indicating that GRBs cannot be assumed to be SCs


is present if some characteristic (say the mean value) of one variable depends

on the other: e.g. xEpy gpEisoq. Only in the absence of dispersion there will

be a one-to-one relation; ζpEpq δpEp gpEisoqq.In general, the determination of the exact nature of the correlation is com-

plicated by the fact that the extant data suffers from many observational

selection biases and truncations. An obvious bias is that most sample are lim-

ited to GRBs with peak fluxes above some threshold. There are also biases

in the determination of Eobsp (see e.g. Lloyd & Petrosian 1999; LP99). The

methods devised by Efron & Petrosian (1992, 1994) are particularly suitable

for determination of correlations in such complexly truncated data.

The first indication of a correlation between the energetics and spectrum

of GRBs came from Mallozzi et al (1995), who reported a correlation between

observed peak flux fp and Eobsp . A more comprehensive analysis by LPM00,

using the above mentioned methods, showed that a similar correlation also

exist between the observed total energy fluence Ftot and Eobsp . Both these

quantities depend on the redshift z Z 1;

Ftot Eisop4πd2mZq, and Eobs

p EpZ, (C.0)

Here dm is the metric distance, and for a flat universe

dmpZq pcH0q» Z

1

dZ 1pΩpZ 1qq12, with ΩpZq ρpZqρ0, (C.0)

describing the evolution of the total energy density ρpzq of all substance (vis-

ible and dark matter, radiation, dark energy or the cosmological constant).

LPM00 also showed that the correlation expected from these interrelation-

ships is not sufficient to account for the observed correlation, and that there

must be an intrinsic correlation between Ep and Eiso. Without knowledge

of redshifts LPM00 predicted the relation Eiso9E0.5p which is very close 0.5,

which is very similar to the so-called Amati relation obtained for GRBs with

known redshifts. However, it should be emphasized that the LPM00 result

implies a statistical correlation and not a one-to-one relation needed for using

GRBs as a reliable distance indicator. Nakar & Piran (2004, 2005) and Band

& Preece (2005) have shown convincingly that the claimed tight one-to-one

relations cannot be valid for all GRBs. We believe that the small dispersion


seen in GRBs with known redshifts is due to selection effects arising in the

localization and redshift determination processes: e.g., these GRBs may rep-

resent the upper envelope of the distribution. A recent analysis by Ghirlanda

et al. (2005) using pseudo-redshift shows a much broader dispersion (as in

LPM00). The claimed tighter Ghirlanda relation, could be due to additional

correlation between the jet opening angle θjet and Eiso, Ep, or both. However,

as mentioned above the picture of jet break and measurements of θjet and Eγis a confusing state in view of Swift observation.

We have reanalyzed the existing data and determined the parameters of

the Amati and Ghirlanda relations. In Figure C.2 we show the the Eiso (and Eγexcluding some outliers) vs Ep for all GRBs with known redshifts (and θjet).

We compute best power law fit for both these correlations and we describe

the dispersion around it by the standard deviation. For the Ep Eiso we find:

Ep9Eηiso, η 0.328 0.036 and σiso 0.286. For Ep Eγ correlation we find:

Ep9Eη1γ , η1 0.555 0.089 and σγ 0.209. We find that additional data has

reduced the significance of the correlations or has increased the dispersions

(compared to values obtained by Amati et al. and Ghirlanda et al.). This is

contrary to what one would expect for a sample with a true correlation. From

this we conclude that, as predicted by LPM00, there is a strong correlation

between Ep and Eiso (or Eγ), but for the population GRBs as a whole both

variables have a broad distribution and most GRBs do not obey the tight

relations claimed earlier.

C.3.1 Correlations and Cosmology

Attempts to use observations of extragalactic sources for cosmological studies

have shown us that extreme care is required. All observational biases must be

accounted for and theoretical ideas tested self-consistently, avoiding circular

arguments. This is especially true for GRBs at this stage of our ignorance

about the basic processes involved in their creation, energizing, particle accel-

eration and radiation production. Here we outline some of the difficulties and

how one may address and possibly overcome them.

Let us assume that there exists a one-to-one but unknown relation between

Eiso and Ep, Eiso E0fpEpE0q, and that we have a measure of Ftot and z. Here

E0 and E0 are some constants, and for convenience we have defined fpxq which


Figure C.2: Ep Eiso and Ep Eγ correlations. The 43 gray circles are all thebursts from our sample that had good enough spectral observations to findthe energy peak of the νFν spectrum, and the 21 black diamonds are a subsetof those bursts with a jet break found in their optical lightcurve. Solid linesare the best fit we find for the two correlations (Ep9Eηiso, η 0.328 0.036and Ep9Eη1γ , η1 0.555 0.089) and dashed lines are the best fit found byAmati et al. 2003 with 20 bursts (Ep9E0.35

iso ) and Ghirlanda et al. 2004 with16 bursts (Ep9E0.70

γ ).


is the inverse of the function g introduced above. The

From equations (C.3) and (C.3) we can write

» Z1

dZ 1rΩpZ 1qs12 fpEobs

p ZqE0qZFtotF0

12

with F0 E0

4πpcH0q2 . (C.0)

For general equations of state P wiρ, ΩpZq °i ΩiZ3p1wiq. The aim of any

cosmological test is to determine the values of different Ωi and their evolutions

(e.g. changes in wi) . If we make the somewhat questionable assumption of

complete absence of cosmological evolutions of Eiso, Ep and the function fpxq,then this equation involves two unknown functions Ωpzq and fpxq. In principle,

if the forms of these functions are known, then one can rely on some kind of

minimum χ2 method to determine the parameters of both functions, assuming

that there is sufficient data to overcome the degeneracies inherent in dealing

with large number of parameters. By now the parametrization of ΩpZq has

become standard. However, the form and parameter values of fpxq is based

on poorly understood data and theory, and currently requires an assumed cos-

mological model. Using the form (e.g. the power law used by Gea05) derived

based on an assumed cosmological model to carry out such a test is strictly

speaking circular. (It is even more circular to fix the value of parameters, in

this case the index η, obtained in one cosmological model to test others as

done by Dai et al. 2004). Even though different models yield results with

small differences, this does not justify the use of circular logic. The differences

sought in the final test using equation C.3.1 will be of the same order. The

situation is even more difficult because as stressed above the correlation is not

a simple one-to-one relation but is a statistical one. Finally, the most impor-

tant unknown which plagues all cosmological tests using discrete sources is the

possibility of the existence of an a priory unknown evolution in one or all of

the relevant characteristics. For example, the intrinsic luminosity Liso might

suffer large evolution which we refer to as luminosity evolution. The value of

Ep can also be subject to selection effects, or the correlation function f(x) may

evolve with redshift, i.e. η ηpzq. For such a general case we are dealing with

4 unknown of the two above. Moreover the rate function of GRBs most likely

is not a constant and can influence the result s with a broad distribution. We

address some of these questions now.


C.4 GRB Evolutions

For a better understanding of GRBs themselves and the possibility of their

use for cosmological tests we need to know whether characteristics such as Eiso,

θjet, Ep, the correlation function fpxq and the occurrence rate 9ρGRB (number

of GRBs per unit co-moving volume and time) change with time or Z. For

example to use the EpEiso correlation for cosmological purposes, one need to

first establish the existence of the correlation and determine its form locally

(low redshift).One then has to rely on a theory or non-circular observations to

show that either this relation does not evolve or if it does how it evolves.The

existing GRB data is not sufficient for such a test. In factthere seems to be

some evidence that there is evolution. Lie has shown by subdividing the data

into 4 z-bins, he obtained different index η which change significantly, render-

ing previous use of this relation for cosmological test invalid. This emphasizes

the need for a solid understanding of the evolution of all GRB characteristics.

Two of the most important characteristics are the energy generation Eiso and

the rate of GRBs. These are also two characteristics which can be determined

more readily and with higher uncertainty. In what follows we address these

two questions. We will use all GRBs with known Z irrespective of whether

we know the jet angle θjet because this gives us a larger sample and because

in view of new Swift observations (Nousek et al. 2006) the determination of

the latter does not seem to be straightforward. Also since it is often easier

to determine the peak flux fp rather than the fluence threshold, in what fol-

lows we will use the peak bolometric luminosity Lp 4πd2mZ

2fp instead of

Eiso ³Lptqdt.

C.4.1 Evolution with Pseudoredshifts

Before considering GRBs with known redshifts we briefly mention that there

has been two indications of strong evolutionary trends from use of pseudo red-

shifts based on the so-called luminosity-variability and lag-luminosity correla-

tions (Lloyd et al. 2002, Kocevski & Liang 2006) using the methods developed

by Efron & Petrosian (1992, 1994). These works show existence of a relatively

strong luminosity evolution Lpzq L0Zα (α 1.4 0.5, 1.7 0.3) from which

one can determine a GRB formation rate which also varies with redshifts and

C.4. GRB EVOLUTIONS 211

can be compared with other cosmological rates such as the star formation rate.

C.4.2 Evolution with Measured Redshifts

Description of the Data

We have compiled the most complete list of GRBs with known redshift. Since

the launch of the Swift satellite, this list has become significantly larger. We

include only bursts with good redshift determination meaning that GRBs with

only upper or lower limits on their redshift are not in our sample. On total,

our sample contains 86 bursts, triggered by 4 different instruments: BATSE

on board CGRO (7 bursts), BeppoSAX (14), HETE-2 (13), and Swift (52).

For each burst we collected fluence and peak flux in the energy bandpass of

the triggering instrument, as well as the duration of the burst. When avail-

able we have also collected spectral information namely the parameters that

define the Band function; the energy peak (Eobsp ) as well as the low (α) and

high (β) energy indexes of the νFν spectrum. When a good spectral analysis

was not available, we took as default values the mean of the BATSE dis-

tributions based on large number of bursts: α ¡ 1.0, β ¡ 2.3

and Eobsp ¡ 250 keV. For non-Swift bursts, all this information was

mostly extracted from FB05 data set to which we added results from re-

cent spectral analysis released in GCN. For Swift GRBs, redshift, duration,

fluence and peak flux were compiled from the Swift Information webpage

(http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/archive) and spectral information have

been retrieved from GCN releases and we have also looked at spectral analysis

ourselves for some of them. We assumed the following cosmological model:

ΩM 0.3,Ωλ 0.7, H0 70 km s1 Mpc1

in order to determine the intrinsic properties (e.g. Eiso see eq. [C.3]). Eiso is

here calculated for a rest-frame bandpass [20,2000] keV. Note that K-correction

due to the shift of the photons into the instrument bandpass has been properly

taken into account for the Eiso calculation (see Bloom et al. 2001). From this,

we calculate the average isotropic-equivalent luminosity as:

Liso Eiso

T90


when T90 is the duration of the burst that includes 90% of the total counts.

Figure C.3: Isotropic average luminosity versus redshift for all bursts in oursample (86). Different symbols represent bursts observed by different instru-ments: BATSE(7), Beppo-SAX (14), HETE-2 (13), Swift (52). For all non-Swift burst, a vertical line is plotted representing the range of isotropic lumi-nosity in which the burst would still have been observable by the instrumentkeeping all its others parameters fixed. Using the work of Lamb & al. 2005,the limiting luminosity is taken to be only dependent on the energy peak Epof the bursts. For Swift bursts, a conservative threshold flux of 0.8 ergs s1

cm2 has been chosen. This limit is shown as a dashed line.

Because different instruments have been used to collect this information,

the sample is very heterogeneous and suffers from various selection and trunca-

tion effects that vary from burst to burst. The most simple of these truncation

effects is due to the limiting sensitivity of the instruments. A GRB trigger will

occur when the peak flux of the burst exceeds the average background vari-

ation by a few sigmas (depending on the setting of the instrument). In an

attempt to carefully take into account this effect into our study, we used the

analysis carried out by Lamb et al. 2005 for pre-Swift instruments. In this

analysis, they computed the sensitivity for each instrument depending on the

spectral parameters of the bursts. Therefore, for each specific burst of our data


set, from its spectral parameters it is possible to determine the limiting photon

flux of the instrument (for specific GRB with its specific spectral parameters).

From these, we can easily compute the limiting peak flux fp,lim for our burst

(assuming the Band function for our spectrum). Finally, we can determine

the detection threshold of the observed energy fluence Fobs. This lower limit

Fobs,lim is obtained via the simple relationship (Lee & Petrosian 1996):

FobsFobs,lim

fpfp,lim

Using the same reasoning we can obtain the limiting values for the intrinsic

quantities meaning the intrinsic values that a given burst needs to have in

order to be detected:

Eiso

Eiso,lim LisoLiso,lim

fpfp,lim

Those limiting average luminosities for each bursts of our sample are repre-

sented in Figure C.3. This analysis was not carried out for BAT instrument

on board Swift therefore we used a conservative threshold of 0.8 erg s1 cm2

for all of Swift bursts.

Analysis and results

We now describe our determination of luminosity and density rate evolution

of the parent population of our GRB sample. Our analysis is based on the

work done by Efron & Petrosian (1992, 1994). We refer the reader to these

two papers for details. We will here simply describe the most important steps

of the analysis and what it allows us to infer on our data sample. This method

has been developed in order to take into account effects of data truncation and

selection bias on a heterogeneous sample from different instruments with differ-

ent sensitivities as described above and shown in Figure C.3. The method cor-

rects for this bias by applying a proper rankings to different subset of our sam-

ple. The first step is to compute the degree of correlation between the isotropic

luminosity and redshift. For that we use the specialized version of Kendell’s τ

statistics. The parameter τ represents the degree of correlation found for the

entire sample with proper accounting for the data truncation. τ 0 means no

correlation is found between the two parameters being inspected (luminosity


and redshift in our case). Any other specific value τ0 implies presence of a cor-

relation with a significance of τ0σ. With this statistic method in place, we can

calculate the parametrization that best describe the luminosity evolution. To

establish a functional form of the luminosity-redshift correlation, we assume

a power law luminosity evolution: Lpzq L0Zα. We then remove this depen-

dency from the observed luminosity: L1 Ñ Lobservedp1 zqα and calculate the

Kendell’s τ statistics as a function of α. Figure C.4 shows the variation of τ

with α.

Once the parametric form for the luminosity evolution have been deter-

mined, this nonparametric maximum likelihood techniques can be used to de-

termine the cumulative distribution for luminosity and redshift (see Efron &

Petrosian 1994) say ΦpLq and σpzq, which gives the relative number of bursts

under a certain redshift z. From this last function, we can easily draw the

comoving rate density 9npzq, which is the number of GRB per unit comoving

volume and unit time:

9npZq dσpZqdZ

Z

dV dZ (C.0)

where the factor Z is to take the time dilatation into account. Note that

this method do not provide any constrain on the normalization of any of the

quantity mentioned above. Normalization will therefore be set arbitrarily on

all our figures representing these functions.

We find a 3.68 σ evidence for luminosity evolution (see the τ value at

the onset of Figure C.4 when α 0). From this figure, we can also infer

that α 2.21 for value obtained when τ 0 gives the best description of the

luminosity evolution for the assumed form has a one sigma range of r1.75, 2.74s.Constrain on the α parameter is not very tight off course since the size of our

sample is still limited. While current satellites accumulate more data, we will

be able to increase our data set and further constrain this parameter in the

future.

The cumulative functions are both shown in Figure C.5 and the estimated

comoving density rate is shown by the jagged curve in Figure 6. Most of the

high frequency variation is not real and is due to taking the derivative of a

noisy curve (σpZq). The dashed line was obtained by fitting the cumulative

density distribution by the following parametrized function:


Figure C.4: Variation of the τ parameter with the power law index α of theluminosity evolution. τ 0 means no correlation which gives the best valueof α 2.21 for the assumed power law form with a one sigma range of 1.75 to2.74.

Figure C.5: The cumulative luminosity distribution ΦpLq (left panel) andthe cumulative redshift distribution σpzq (right panel). Fit to the cumulativedensity rate is represented with a point line.


Figure C.6: The comoving rate density 9npzq. The dashed line was obtainedby fitting the cumulative density distribution by the parametrized smoothfunction of equation C.4.2. We also show comparison of the density rate (fromFigure C.6) with three different SFR scenarios taken from literature. No SFRscenario seems to match the density rate deduced from our analysis.


Figure C.7: Comparison of the comoving density rate evolution of the totalsample with that of several sub-sample where we impose three different lumi-nosity thresholds: Liso ¡ 1049, ¡ 1050, and ¡ 81050 ergs.s1. We also lookedat a low luminosity population where we imposed of maximal luminosity of8 1050 ergs.s1. Each sub-sample is subject to the same analysis and hasprovided different luminosity evolution as evident from the different values ofα. As expected, the rate at low redshift decreases with increasing values ofthreshold.


σpZq9 pZZ0qp1p1 ZZ0qp1p2 (C.0)

with the following values for the parameters: Z0 1.8, p1 7.1, and p2 0.95

These results are still very preliminary as more data become available,

accuracy of the density function will increase constraining further the evolution

rate of long bursts. By tackling this problem for the first time we hope to set

the ground for further analysis in the future.

The behavior of the comoving density rate for our sample of long bursts is

quite peculiar with a significant rate increase happening at low redshifts. This

effect might be due to some selection effects that we have not included in our

analysis. For instance, it might be a consequence of the fact that instruments

detect more easily low-redshifts host galaxies and therefore create a bias toward

low redshifts GRBs. Another interesting feature is the steady increase we

obtain in the GRB rate at high redshifts (z ¡ 3). Figure 7 compares the

estimated comoving rate evolution with different models of Star Formation

Rates (SFRs I, II, III).

For comparison with Star Formation history, we used three different models

taken from the literature:

- Steidel et al. 1999:

9n 0.16h70e3.4z

e3.4z 22Mdyr1Mpc3 (C.0)

- Porciani & Madau 2000:

9n 0.22h70e3.05z0.4

e2.93z 15Mdyr1Mpc3 (C.0)

- Cole et al. 2001:

9n pa bzqh70

1 pzcqd Mdyr1Mpc3 (C.0)

with pa, b, c, dq p0.0166, 0.1848, 1.9474, 2.6316qAs evident, no SFR scenario seems to match the density rate evolution

deduced from our analysis, specially at low redshift. How much of this differ-

ence is real and how much is due to other selection effects that we have not

quantified is unclear. Because of increasing difficulty of identifying the host

C.5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 219

galaxy with increasing redshift one would expect some bias against detection

of high redshift bursts. But the largest densities for SFR seems to be in the

intermediate redshift range.

An other possibility is that there may exist subclasses of GRBs such as low

or high luminosity classes. In order to test this eventuality we have defined

several subsets of our total GRB sample carried out the above analysis for

each subsamples, determining a new luminosity evolution (a new α) and then

proceeding to obtain 9npzq from the smooth function fitting σpzq. We impose

different luminosity thresholds for the different subsamples. Three different

threshold have been chosen: Liso ¡ 1049 ergs.s1, Liso ¡ 1050 ergs.s1, and

Liso ¡ 8 1050 ergs.s1. We also looked at a low luminosity population where

we imposed of maximal luminosity of 1050 ergs.s1. Figures C.6 and C.7 com-

pare the new rates with that of the total sample. As expected high luminosity

samples contribute less to the rate at low redshifts. But the general trend and

the differences with SFR are essentially still present. However the method and

framework we presented would be a very valuable tool when enough data has

been accumulated.

C.5 Summary and Conclusion

We have considered GRBs as cosmological tools. We find that GRBs are not

SCs and the correlations found so far are statistical in nature and too broad to

be very useful for cosmological model parameter determination. In addition we

have shown that there is strong evidence for evolution of the peak luminosity

of GRBs. This indicate a very likely possibility that Eiso and Eγ may also have

undergone comparable changes. There may also be evolution of Ep, θjet or

other relevant characteristics. This makes use of GRBs as cosmological tools

more difficult.

We may therefore ask is this process hopeless. Strictly speaking the answer

is no. Some broad brush conclusion can already be reached. For example, one

can test the relative merits of different forms for fpxq. As shown by FB05 the

SC assumption (φpEisoq Ñ δpEiso E0q) gives unacceptable fit to essentially all

cosmological models, but the use of the power-law form agrees with Lemaitre

type model (FB05, Gea05) with a relatively long quasi-static phase (refereed


to as a loitering model). Such models, which were in vogue some time ago (see

Petrosian 1974), are currently unacceptable because of their low (baryonic plus

dark) matter density and large curvature. This indicates that the form of the

correlation and/or other assumptions (e.g. no evolution) are not correct. In

this paper, we have shown that there is strong evolution of luminosity and

Eiso. Lei et al. have also shown that the form of the Ep Eiso correlation may

evolve. These are tentative results and more data are required to determine

these evolution trend and their meaning.

The relevant variables in addition to redshift are Eobsp Epp1zq and Ftot,

determination of which requires a good description of the total spectrum. We

need to know the observational selection biases for all the variables and their

parameters, and use accurate statistical methods to account for the biases and

data truncations. From these one can learn about the distributions of Eiso and

Ep and their correlations.

Obviously Swift observations will be extremely helpful and eventually may

provide the data required for this complex task. In the near future, however,

from analysis of the incoming and archived data we will (and need to) first learn

more about the nature of the GRBs than cosmological models. Eventually we

may have enough information to construct a well defined “SC”, which can be

used for global cosmological tests as is done using type Ia supernovae. The

immediate situation may be more analogous to galaxies where the cosmological

tests are rendered complicated because of the multivariate situation and broad

distributions of the relevant variables. Consequently, over the years the focus

of activity has shifted from the determination of the few global cosmological

parameters to the investigation of structure formation, the building process of

the black holes and the star formation rate (SFR). Similarly, we expect that

from investigation of GRBs we will learn about the evolution, distributions

and correlations of their intrinsic characteristics, and the relationship of these

with the evolutionary rates of other cosmological sources and the formation

rates of stars, supernovae and black holes.

In summary, on the long run cosmological test with GRBs may be possible,

either carried out with clever statistical methods, or by identification of a

subclass of “SCs”. On a shorter time scale, we need to learn more about

the intrinsic characteristics of GRBs, and provide a reasonable theoretical

C.5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 221

interpretation for them and their cosmological evolution. As an example, as

shown here, one outcome of our analysis is the determination of the evolution

rate of GRBs. We have shown that for all GRBs with known redshifts this rate

appears to be different from the SFR. These differences seems to be present

with different subdivision of the sample and may be consequences of other

selection biases not included in our analysis. We postpone a proper treatment

of these biases to futur work.

Bibliography

[1] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 817

[2] Lamb, D. Q. and Reichart, D. E. In J. C. Wheeler and H. Martel, editors,

20th Texas Symposium on relativistic astrophysics, volume 586, page 605.

2001.

[3] Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., and Olson, R. A. Astrophysical Journal

Letters, 182:–85. 1973.

[4] Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A., Pendleton, G. N. et al. Astrophysical

Journal Supplement, 122:465–495. 1999, arXiv:astro-ph/9903205.

[5] BATSE sky locations

URL http://f64.nsstc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/skymap/

[6] BATSE durations

URL http://f64.nsstc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/duration/

[7] Hjorth, J., et al. 2005, Ap. J. Lett., 630, L117

[8] Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L. et al. Astrophysical Journal, 413:281–292.

1993.

[9] Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S. et al. Astrophysical Journal

Supplement, 126:19–36. 2000.

[10] Djorgovski, S. G., Metzger, M. R., Kulkarni, S. R. et al. Nature, 387:876–

878. 1997.

[11] High-Energy Transient Explorer - HETE-2

URL http://space.mit.edu/HETE

222

arXiv:astro-ph/9903205

http://f64.nsstc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/skymap/

http://f64.nsstc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/duration/

http://space.mit.edu/HETE

BIBLIOGRAPHY 223

[12] Swift sattelite

URL http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/main/index.html

[13] Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., Meszaros, P., Burrows,

D. N., Nousek, J. A., & Gehrels, N. 2006, Ap. J., 642, 354

[14] Kocevski, D., & Butler, N. 2008, Ap. J., 680, 531

[15] The redshift distribution of Swift GRBs

URL http://raunvis.hi.is/$\sim$pja/GRBsample.html

[16] Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006, Astron. & Astrophys., 447, 897

[17] MacFadyen, A. I. and Woosley, S. E. Astrophysical Journal, 524:262–289.

1999, arXiv:astro-ph/9810274.

[18] Gehrels, N., Piro, L., and Leonard, P. J. T. Scientific American,

287(6):060000–59. 2002.

[19] Blandford, R. D. and Znajek, R. L. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-

nomical Society, 179:433–456. 1977.

[20] Blandford, R. D. and Payne, D. G. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro-

nomical Society, 199:883–903. 1982.

[21] Waxman, E. 2003, Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, 598, 393

[22] Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1992, Mon. Not. RAS, 258, 41P

[165] Meszaros, P. and Rees, M. J. Astrophysical Journal, 405:278–284. 1993.

[24] Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., and Piran, T. Astrophysical Journal Letters,

395:–83. 1992, arXiv:astro-ph/9204001.

[25] Meszaros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1994, Mon. Not. RAS, 269, L41

[26] Paczynski, B., & Xu, G. 1994, Ap. J., 427, 708

[27] Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1997, Ap. J., 485, 270

[28] Granot, J. and Sari, R. Astrophysical Journal, 568:820–829. 2002, arXiv:

astro-ph/0108027.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/main/index.html

http://raunvis.hi.is/$\sim $pja/GRBsample.html





224 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[29] Piran, T. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76:1143–1210. 2005, arXiv:

astro-ph/0405503.

[30] Meszaros, P. Reports of Progress in Physics, 69:2259–2322. 2006, arXiv:

astro-ph/0605208.

[31] Fermi, E. Physical Review, 75:1169–1174. 1949.

[32] Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G. et al. Monthly Notices of the

Royal Astronomical Society, 328:393–408. 2001, arXiv:astro-ph/0107530.

[33] Wijers, R. A. M. J. and Galama, T. J. Astrophysical Journal, 523:177–

186. 1999, arXiv:astro-ph/9805341.

[34] Panaitescu, A. and Kumar, P. Astrophysical Journal, 571:779–789. 2002.

[35] Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Giblin, T. W. et al. Astrophysical Journal,

581:1248–1255. 2002.

[36] Waxman, E. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 485:–5. 1997, arXiv:

astro-ph/9704116.

[37] Ghisellini, G. and Celotti, A. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 511:–93.

1999, arXiv:astro-ph/9812079.

[38] Shaviv, N. J. and Dar, A. Astrophysical Journal, 447:863. 1995, arXiv:

astro-ph/9407039.

[39] Piran, T. In Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics, pages 343–377. 1997.

[40] Lithwick, Y. and Sari, R. Astrophysical Journal, 555:540–545. 2001,

arXiv:astro-ph/0011508.

[41] Nakar, E. Physics Reports, 442:166–236. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/

0701748.

[42] Goodman, J. New Astronomy, 2:449–460. 1997, arXiv:astro-ph/

9706084.

[43] Katz, J. I. and Piran, T. Astrophysical Journal, 490:772. 1997.

















BIBLIOGRAPHY 225

[44] Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R. et al. Astrophysical Journal Letters,

562:–55. 2001.

[45] Norris, J. P., Marani, G.F. & Bonnell, J.T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 248

[46] Norris, J. P. 2002, ApJ, 579, 386

[47] Amati, L. et al. 2002, A&A 390, 81

[48] Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G. & Lazzeti, D. 2004a ApJ, 616, 331

[49] Petrosian, V., Bouvier, A., & Ryde, F. 2009, arXiv:0909.5051

[50] Bloom, J. S., Prochaska, J. X., Pooley, D. et al. Astrophysical Journal,

638:354–368. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0505480.

[51] Fox, D. B., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A. et al. Nature, 437:845–850. 2005,


[52] Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Price, P. A. et al. Astrophysical Jour-

nal, 636:391–399. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0504359.

[53] Moller, P., Fynbo, J. P. U., Hjorth, J. et al. Astronomy and Astrophysics,

396:–21. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0210654.

[54] Akerlof, C., Balsano, R., Barthelmy, S. et al. Nature, 398:400–402. 1999,


[55] Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J. et al. Nature, 395:670–

672. 1998, arXiv:astro-ph/9806175.

[56] Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Wieringa, M. H. et al. Nature, 395:663–669.

1998.

[57] Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Moller, P. et al. Nature, 423:847–850. 2003.

[58] Woosley, S. E. and Bloom, J. S. Annual Review of Astronomy and As-

trophysics, 44:507–556. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0609142.

[59] Fynbo, J. P. U., Jakobsson, P., Moller, P. et al. Astronomy and Astro-

physics, 406:–63. 2003.








226 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[60] Dingus, B. L. 1995, Ap&SS, 231, 187

[61] Sommer, M., et al. 1994, Ap. J., 422, L63

[62] Gonzalez, M. M., Dingus, B. L., Kaneko, Y. et al. Nature, 424:749–751.

2003.

[63] Hurley, K., Dingus, B. L., Mukherjee, R. et al. Nature, 372:652. 1994.

[64] Giuliani, A., et al. 2008, Astron. & Astrophys., 491, L25

[65] Atkins, R., Benbow, W., Berley, D. et al. Astrophysical Journal Letters,

533:–119. 2000.

[66] Fan, Y. Z. and Piran, T. ArXiv e-prints, 805. 2008, 0805.2221.

[67] Guetta, D. and Granot, J. Astrophysical Journal, 585:885–889. 2003,


[68] Galli, A. and Guetta, D. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 480:5–13. 2008,

arXiv:0709.4568.

[69] Sari, R., Narayan, R., and Piran, T. Astrophysical Journal, 473:204. 1996,


[70] Pe’er, A. and Waxman, E. Astrophysical Journal, 613:448–459. 2004,


[71] Vietri, M. Physical Review Letters, 78:4328–4331. 1997, arXiv:

astro-ph/9705061.

[72] Waxman, E. Physical Review Letters, 75:386–389. 1995, arXiv:

astro-ph/9505082.

[73] Gupta, N. and Zhang, B. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical

Society, 380:78–92. 2007, arXiv:0704.1329.

[74] Nishikov, A. I. 1961, Zh.Experimen. i Theo. Fiz. 41, 549

[75] Gould, R. J. & Shreder, G. 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 252

[76] Fazio, G. G., & Stecker, F. W. 1970, Nature, 226, 135

0805.2221


arXiv:0709.4568







arXiv:0704.1329

BIBLIOGRAPHY 227

[77] Driver, S. P., Popescu, C. C., Tuffs, R. J., Graham, A. W., Liske, J., &

Baldry, I. 2008, Ap. J. Lett., 678, L101

[78] Hauser, M. G., & Dwek, E. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 249

[79] Madau, P., & Pozzetti, L. 2000, Mon. Not. RAS, 312, L9

[80] Salamon, M. H., & Stecker, F. W. 1998, Ap. J., 493, 547

[81] Stecker, F. W., Malkan, M. A. & Scully, S. T. 2006, Ap. J., 648, 774

(St06), and Erratum: ApJ, 658, 1392 (2007)

[82] Kneiske, T. M., Mannheim, K. & Hartmann, D. H. 2002, A&A 386, 1

[83] Kneiske, T. M., Bretz, T., Mannheim, K. & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, A&A

413, 807

[84] Primack, J. R., Bullock, J. S., & Somerville, R. S. 2005, in AIP Conf.

Ser. 745, High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, ed. F. A. Aharonian, H. J.

Volk, & D. Horns (Melville, NY: AIP), 23

[85] Gilmore, R. C., Madau, P., Primack, J. R., Somerville, R. S., & Haardt,

F. 2009, Mon. Not. RAS, 399, 1694

[86] Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837

(F08)

[169] Razzaque, S., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2009, Ap. J., 697, 483

[88] Finke, J. D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, Ap. J., 712, 238

[89] Albert, J. et al. 2008, Sci, 320, 1752

[90] Wagner, S.J. et al., (HESS Collaboration), 2010, 11th HEAD, BAAS, 42.

[91] Stecker, F. W., & de Jager, O. C. 1993, Ap. J., 415, L71

[92] Schroedter, M. 2005, Ap. J., 628, 617

[93] Costamante, L., Aharonian, F., Horns, D., Ghisellini, G., 2004, NewAR,

48, 469

[94] Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 1018

228 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[267] Mazin, D. & Raue, M. 2007, A&A 471, 439

[96] Finke, J. D., & Razzaque, S. 2009, Ap. J., 698, 1761

[97] Stecker, F. W., Baring, M. G., & Summerlin, E. J. 2007, Ap. J. Lett.,

667, L29

[98] Katarzynski, K., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Gracia, J., & Maraschi, L.

2006, Mon. Not. RAS, 368, L52

[99] Bottcher, M., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2008, Ap. J. Lett., 679, L9

[100] Aharonian, F. A., Khangulyan, D., & Costamante, L. 2008, Mon. Not.

RAS, 387, 1206

[101] Reyes, L. C. Detecting the EBL attenuation of blazars with GLAST.

Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. 2007.

[102] Malkan, M. A. and Stecker, F. W. Astrophysical Journal, 555:641–649.

2001.

[103] Stecker, F. W., Malkan, M. A., and Scully, S. T. Astrophysical Journal,

648:774–783. 2006.

[104] Sreekumar, P., et al. 1998, Ap. J., 494, 523

[105] Band, D. L., et al. 2009, Ap. J., 701, 1673

[106] Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A.,

& Band, D. L. 2006, Ap. J. Supp., 166, 298

[107] Loredo, T. J. & Epstein, R. I. 1989, ApJ, 336, 896

[108] Briggs, M. S. 1999, Gamma-Ray Bursts: The First Three Minutes, 190,

133

[109] Fisher, R.A., Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver & Boy d,

Edinburgh. Z.

[110] Neyman, J., & Pearson, E. 1928, Biometrika

[111] Wilks, S. S. 1938, Ann. Math. Stat., 9, 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY 229

[112] Cash, W. 1979, Ap. J., 228, 939

[113] Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., Dingus, B. L., Digel, S. W.,

Esposito, J. A., Fierro, J. M., Hartman, R. C., Hunter, S. D., Kanbach,

G., Kniffen, D. A., Lin, Y. C., Macomb, D. J., Mayer-Hasselwander, H. A.,

Michelson, P. F., von Montigny, C., Mukherjee, R., Nolan, P. L., Ramana-

murthy, P. V., Schneid, E., Sreekumar, P., Thompson, D. J., & Willis, T. D.

1996, Astrophysical Journal v.461, 461, 396

[114] Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemigi-

nowska, A. 2002, Ap. J., 571, 545

[115] Ryde, F. 2004, Ap. J., 614, 827

[172] Baring, M. G. 2006, Ap. J., 650, 1004

[173] Granot, J., Cohen-Tanugi, J., & do Couto e Silva, E. 2008, Ap. J., 677,

92

[118] Meegan et al. 2009, Ap. J., 702, 791-804

[119] Kuehn, F., Bonnell, J., Hughes, R., Norris, J., Ritz, S., Russell, J.,

Smith, P., & Winer, B. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference

Series, Vol. 921, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. S. Ritz,

P. Michelson, & C. A. Meegan, 556–557

[120] Bouvier, A., et al. 2008, GCN 8183

[121] Tajima, H., et al. 2008, GCN 8246

[122] Omodei, N., et al. 2008, GCN 8407

[123] McEnery, J., et al. 2008, GCN 8684

[124] Ohno, M., et al. 2009, GCN 8903

[125] Ohno, M., et al. 2009, GCN 9021


[127] Cutini, S., et al. 2009, GCN 9077

230 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[128] Ohno, M., et al. 2009, GCN 9334

[129] Omodei, N., et al. 2009, GCN 9350

[130] Piron, F., et al. 2009, GCN 9584

[131] dePalma, F., et al. 2009, GCN 9867


[133] Uehara, T., et al. 2009, GCN 9934

[134] Bissaldi, E., et al. 2009, GCN 9972




[138] Rau, A., et al. 2009, GCN 9353

[139] Conrad, J., et al. 2003, http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0202013v2

[140] Loredo, T. J., 1992, ”Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy”, ed.

E.D. Feigelson and G.J. Babu, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 275-297

[141] Gregory, P. 2005, ”Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sci-

ences”, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge

[143] Li, T. & Ma, Y., 1983, ApJ, 272, 317

[143] Li, T. & Ma, Y., 1983, ApJ, 272, 317

[144] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, Ap. J., 707, 580

[145] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, Science, 323, 1688

[146] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, Ap. J., 712, 558

[147] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, Ap. J. Lett., 717, L127

[148] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 331

[149] Ackermann, M., et al. 2010, Ap. J., 716, 1178

BIBLIOGRAPHY 231

[150] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, Ap. J. Lett., 706, L138

[151] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, in prep.

[152] Toma, K., Wu, X.-F., & Meszaros, P. 2009, Ap. J., 707, 1404

[153] Toma, K., Wu, X.-F., & Meszaros, P. 2010, arXiv:1002.2634

[154] Asano, K., Guiriec, S., & Meszaros, P. 2009, Ap. J. Lett., 705, L191

[155] Ryde, F., et al. 2010, Ap. J. Lett., 709, L172

[167] Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, arXiv:0910.5726

[169] Razzaque, S., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2009, arXiv:0908.0513

[158] Wheeler, J. A., & Ford, K. 1998, Geons, black holes and quantum foam :

a life in physics. Publisher: New York, NY: Norton, 1998. ISBN: 0393046427,

[159] Amelino-Camelia, G., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., Nanopoulos, D. V.,

& Sarkar, S. 1998, Nature, 395, 525

[160] Mattingly, D. 2005, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, 5

[161] Kostelecky, V. A., & Mewes, M. 2008, Ap. J. Lett., 689, L1

[162] Amelino-Camelia, G., & Smolin, L. 2009, Physical Review D, 80, 084017

[163] Amelino-Camelia, G. 2008, arXiv:0806.0339

[164] Jacobson, T., Liberati, S., & Mattingly, D. 2006, Annals of Physics, 321,

150

[165] Meszaros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1997, Ap. J., 476, 232

[166] Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, Ap. J. Lett., 497, L17

[167] Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, Mon. Not. RAS, 400, L75

[168] Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, Mon. Not.

RAS, 403, 926

[169] Razzaque, S., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2009, arXiv:0908.0513

232 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[170] Dermer, C. D., & Mitman, K. E. 1999, Ap. J. Lett., 513, L5

[171] Dermer, C. D. 2008, Ap. J., 684, 430

[172] Baring, M. G. 2006, Ap. J., 650, 1004

[173] Granot, J., Cohen-Tanugi, J., & do Couto e Silva, E. 2008, Ap. J., 677,

92



[175] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009a, Science, 323, 1688

[176] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009b, Ap. J., 700, 597

[177] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009c, ApJ, 706, L138

[178] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009d, Science, 323, 1688

[179] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 708, 1310

[180] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 710, 810

[181] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010c, ApJ, 710, 1271

[182] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010d, ApJ, 716, 30

[183] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010e, 715, 429

[184] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010f, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 101101

[185] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010g, in press; arXiv:1004.0348

[186] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010h, in prep.: “Detection of a spectral cutoff in

the extra hard component from GRB 090926A”

[187] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010i, ApJS, 188, 405

[188] Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010j, ApJ, 707, 1310

[189] Acciari, V. A., et al. 2010, Ap. J. Lett., 708, L100

[190] Ackermann, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1178

BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

[191] Aharonian, F. A., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 11

[192] Aharonian, F. A., et al., 2002, A&A, 384, 23

[193] Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 1018

[194] Aharonian, F. A., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, 9

[195] Aharonian, F. A., Khangulyan, D., & Costamante, L. 2008, Mon. Not.

RAS, 387, 1206

[196] Albert, J. et al. 2008, Sci, 320, 1752

[197] Atwood, W. B., et al. 2009, Ap. J. Supp., 697, 1071

[198] Band, D., et al. 1993, Ap. J., 413, 281

[199] Bloom, J., et al. 2009, Ap. J. Supp., 691, 723

[200] Bottcher, M., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2008, Ap. J. Lett., 679, L9

[201] Chen, A., Reyes, L. C., & Ritz, S. 2004, Ap. J., 608, 686

[202] Costamante, L., Aharonian, F., Horns, D., Ghisellini, G., 2004, NewAR,

48, 469

[203] Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2002, Ap. J., 580, 1013

[204] Dai, Z. G., Zhang, B., Gou, L. J., Meszaros, P., & Waxman, E. 2002,

Ap. J. Lett., 580, L7

[205] Driver, S. P., Popescu, C. C., Tuffs, R. J., Graham, A. W., Liske, J., &

Baldry, I. 2008, Ap. J. Lett., 678, L101

[206] Essey, W. & Kusenko, A. 2010, Astropart. Phys. 33, 81

[207] Fazio, G. G., & Stecker, F. W. 1970, Nature, 226, 135

[208] Finke, J. D., & Razzaque, S. 2009, Ap. J., 698, 1761

[209] Finke, J. D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, Ap. J., 712, 238

[210] Fisher, R.A. 1925, ”Statistical Methods for Research Workers”, Oliver

and Boyd (Edinburgh)

234 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[211] Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837

(F08)

[212] Georganopoulos, M., Sambruna, R. M., Kazanas, D., Cillis, A. N., Che-

ung, C. C., Perlman, E. S., Blundell, K. M., & Davis, D. S. 2008, Ap. J.

Lett., 686, L5

[213] Greiner, J. et al. 2009, A&A, 598, 89

[214] Gilmore, R. C., Madau, P., Primack, J. R., Somerville, R. S., & Haardt,

F. 2009, Mon. Not. RAS, 399, 1694

[215] Gould, R. J. & Shreder, G. 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 252

[216] Hartmann, D.H., 2007, AIPC, 921, 24

[217] Hauser, M. G., & Dwek, E. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 249

[218] Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., Sadler, E. M., Ricci, R.,

Murphy, T., Ulvestad, J. S., & Winn, J. N. 2007, ApJS, 171, 61

[219] Healey, S. E., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 97

[220] Hinton, J.A. & Hofmann, W., 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy &

Astrophysics, 47, 523

[221] Hopkins, A. M. & Beacom, J. F., 2006, Ap. J., 651, 142

[222] Katarzynski, K., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Gracia, J., & Maraschi,

L. 2006, Mon. Not. RAS, 368, L52

[223] Kneiske, T. M., Mannheim, K. & Hartmann, D. H. 2002, A&A 386, 1

[224] Kneiske, T. M., Bretz, T., Mannheim, K. & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, A&A

413, 807

[225] Krennrich, F., Dwek, E., & Imran, A. 2008, Ap. J., 689, L93

[226] Madau, P., & Pozzetti, L. 2000, Mon. Not. RAS, 312, L9

[227] Malkan, M. A. & Stecker, F. W. 1998, Ap. J., 496, 13

[228] Malkan, M. A. & Stecker, F. W. 2001, Ap. J., 555, 641

BIBLIOGRAPHY 235

[229] Marcha, M. J. M., Brown, I. W. A., Impey C. D., & Smith P. S. 1996,

MNRAS,281, 425

[230] Marconi, A. et al., 2004, Mon. Not. RAS, 351, 169

[231] Massaro, E., Giommi, P.., Leto, C., Marchegiani, P., Maselli, A., Perri,

M., Piranomonte, S., & Sclavi, S. 2009, Astron. & Astrophys., 495, 691

[232] Massaro, E., Tramacere, A., Perri, M., Giommi, P., & Tosti, G. 2006,

Astron. & Astrophys., 448, 861

[233] Mattox, J. R., et al. 1996, Ap. J., 461, 396

[234] Mattox, J. R., Hartman, R. C., & Reimer, O. 2001, ApJS, 135, 155

[235] Mazin, D. & Raue, M. 2007, A&A 471, 439

[236] Mirizzi, A., Raffelt, G.G. & Serpico, P.D. 2007, Physical Review D76,

023001

[237] Murase, K., Takahashi, K., Inoue, S., Ichiki, K., & Nagataki, S. 2008,

Ap. J. Lett., 686, L67

[238] Neronov, A., & Vovk, I. 2010, Science, 328, 73

[239] Nishikov, A. I. 1961, Zh. Experimen. i Theo. Fiz. 41, 549

[240] Plaga, R. 1995, Nature, 374, 430

[241] Prandini, E., Bonnoli, G., Maraschi, L., Mariotti, M., & Tavecchio, F.

2010, Mon. Not. RAS, L65

[242] Primack, J. R., Bullock, J. S., & Somerville, R. S. 2005, in AIP Conf.

Ser. 745, High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, ed. F. A. Aharonian, H. J.

Volk, & D. Horns (Melville, NY: AIP), 23

[243] Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemigi-

nowska, A. 2002, Ap. J., 571, 545

[244] Razzaque, S., Dermer, C. D., & Finke, J. D. 2009, Ap. J., 697, 483

[245] Razzaque, S., Meszaros, P., & Zhang, B. 2004, Ap. J., 613, 1072

236 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[246] Reimer, A. 2007, Ap. J., 665, 1023

[247] Salamon, M. H., & Stecker, F. W. 1998, Ap. J., 493, 547

[248] Salvaterra, R., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1258

[249] Sanchez-Conde, M. A., Paneque, D., Bloom, E. D., Prada, F., &

Dominguez, A. 2010, Phys. Rev. D 79, 123511

[250] Schroedter, M. 2005, Ap. J., 628, 617

[251] Serpico, P.D. 2009, Adv. in Space Sci. 43, 335

[252] Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R.W., & Michelson, P.F., 2003, ApJ,

590, 109

[253] Stanev, T. & Franceschini, A. 1998, Ap. J., 494, L159

[254] Stecker, F. W., Baring, M. G., & Summerlin, E. J. 2007, Ap. J. Lett.,

667, L29



[256] Stecker, F. W., & de Jager, O. C. 1993, Ap. J., 415, L71

[257] Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Gioia, I. M., et al. 1991, ApJS, 374, 72

[258] Takahashi, K., Murase, K., Ichiki, K., Inoue, S., & Nagataki, S. 2008,

Ap. J. Lett., 687, L5

[259] Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1254

[260] Tavani, M., et al. 2008, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 588, 52

[261] Thompson, D. J., et al. 1993, Ap. J. Supp., 86, 629

[262] Wagner, S.J. et al., (HESS Collaboration), 2010, 11th HEAD, BAAS, 42

[263] Waxman, E., & Coppi, P. 1996, Ap. J. Lett., 464, L75

[264] Wilks, S.S. 1938, Ann. Math. Stat., 9, 60

[265] Razzaque, S. 2007, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 60, 111

BIBLIOGRAPHY 237

[266] Mazin, D., & Raue, M. 2008, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 3,

1049

[267] Mazin, D., & Raue, M. 2007, Astron. & Astrophys., 471, 439

[268] Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2008, Ap. J., 673, 972

[269] Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N. E., & Nanopoulos, D. V. 2008, Physics Letters

B, 665, 412

[270] Zloshchastiev, K. G. 2010, American Institute of Physics Conference

Series, 1206, 112

[271] Asano, K., & Takahara, F. 2003, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 55, 433

[272] Piran, T. 2003, Nature, 422, 268

[273] Pelassa, V., Preece, R., Piron, F., Omodei, N., Guiriec, S., Fermi LAT,

f. t., & GBM collaborations 2010, arXiv:1002.2617

[274] Medvedev, M. V. 2000, Ap. J., 540, 704

Documents

arXiv · I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy